Taxation

Lord Geddes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether personal taxation of an average earner has increased over the past eight years; and, if so, by how much.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the percentage of earnings paid in income tax has fallen for all families, except married couples with no children, since the Government came to office in 1997. Table 2.7, "Percentage of earnings paid in income tax", on the Inland Revenue website provides the relevant information. A single earner also pays less.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, he may or may not have noticed that my Question did not refer to income tax, but to taxes. Can he confirm that since his Government came to power, taxes have increased by some 50 per cent in cash terms, or 24 per cent in real terms, resulting in average households paying an estimated £5,000 more tax now than they did eight years ago? Can he further confirm that, from the Treasury's own figures in last week's Budget, taxes are predicted to increase by some £35 billion over the next four years which, as a share of GDP, means an increase from 35.6 per cent to 38.5 per cent in 2008–09?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, none of those further questions arises from the original Question put to me, but I shall do my best. I responded in terms of income tax because, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, well knows, other forms of personal taxation like value added tax are not capable of the same analysis as income tax. When someone pays value added tax, you do not know whether they have children, whether they are single or whether they are married. You cannot know the incidence in the same way and thus VAT and other forms of taxation cannot simply be added to income tax and tax credits.
	In response to the second part of the noble Lord's question, no, I cannot confirm what he has said. The claim sounds most implausible and I do not know where it has come from. I shall be delighted to investigate it in more detail.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that making party political points on either side of the argument is pretty much a waste of time? No one here has a vote, and no one outside is listening. But would not the simple answer to the noble Lord have been to say that, yes, there has been an increase in taxation, but there has been an even bigger increase in average earnings?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with part of what my noble friend says; certainly it is true that no one is listening. But when one is asked a party political question, it is good fun to make party political points in response and I am not going to be deprived of that pleasure.
	However, the more serious point made by my noble friend is absolutely true. The reason why there are more taxpayers is that more people are earning more money. That is also true for higher rate taxpayers.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why the Government's munificence in relation to income tax has been denied to married parents with children?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the contrary, married couples with children are doing better, which is a conscious issue of policy as part of our aim to reduce and ultimately eliminate child poverty. What I said in response to the original Question was that the only group of taxpayers for whom taxation as a percentage of earnings has not gone down is married couples without children. All families with children are better off in those terms.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is it not true that, since the Government came to power, some 7.5 million more people are paying a higher marginal rate of tax? Is it not also true that the Budget indicated that under this Government income tax will rise by another 1.1 percentage points? Can the Minister tell us how many more people will be paying a higher marginal rate of tax if this Government are re-elected?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can only think that the noble Baroness was not listening when I responded to my noble friend Lord Barnett. Of course more people are paying tax and more are paying higher rates of tax. That is because more people are better off and therefore able to pay those taxes. That is quite different from saying that tax rates have gone up. What has happened is that the tax yield has risen because we are better off, and I am not ashamed of that.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, if my noble friend is succumbing to the temptation to be party political, will he do it a little better? Will he tell the Opposition about the benefits of low inflation, high growth, low unemployment, and point out very clearly that it is not just average earners whose prosperity is greater, it is also greater for above average earners and below average earners, and in particular for pensioners? Let us tell the story as it is.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not constrained in my willingness to make party political points like those made by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, but I am constrained by my willingness on the whole to answer the Question and not to stray wide of it.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, since the Minister is so anxious to respond to questions about income tax specifically, will he give an undertaking that, if the Government of which he is such a distinguished member are re-elected, there will be no increase in the top rate of income tax?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my refusal to anticipate our manifesto must not be taken as an indication that there will be changes—or not, as the case may be.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important features of any system of taxation is that it is seen to be fair? Can the Government take a major step towards making the tax system fairer by scrapping the grossly unfair council tax and replacing it with a fair local income tax?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to go wide of the Question by responding to a point about council tax, which was not part of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. But I will respond to the point about fairness. In addition to the figures we have considered in Table 2.7 on the Inland Revenue website, the most striking ones show the extent to which the bottom decile of earners has done so much better in terms of personal taxation than the top decile. While there are far too many figures for me to read out, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to look at the table. As a measure of social justice, it is very powerful indeed.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that if we look at the record of the previous Conservative government, we see that in the 1990s they froze personal allowances for three years on the trot; they froze the capital gains tax annual exemption limit for four years in succession; and they froze the level at which higher rate tax kicks in for four years in succession? Will he confirm that we now enjoy the lowest rates of corporation tax in our history, the lowest effective rates of capital gains tax since that tax was introduced, and enjoy basic and starting rates of income tax lower than those which we inherited, and the lowest for decades? Can he also give us his view, when the question is put asking who can be trusted on the economy and taxation, on how the country will answer?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have learnt from happy experience never to question the figures given by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. He is always right.

Firearms Offences and Violent Crime

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	By how much recorded violent crime and gun use has increased in the past eight years compared to the previous eight years.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, between 1989 and 1996 there was an increase of 36 per cent in offences involving firearms (excluding air weapons). Changes in reporting and recording mean that figures for 1997 and 2003–04 are not directly comparable.
	Between 1989 and 1996 there was an increase of 44 per cent in violent crime. Again, changes in reporting and recording mean that figures for 1997 and 2003–04 are not directly comparable.
	Without the NCRS and increased reporting, recorded violence would have fallen.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I must declare an interest as the current chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and as a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee. Will the Minister confirm that violent crime is higher than this time last year and that, indeed, gun crime has more than doubled since 1997? Will she further confirm that the majority of gun crimes were committed using illegal firearms?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will not confirm those figures, but I will tell noble Lords why that is so. First, there is a difficulty because the method of counting offences has changed. Noble Lords will know that, for example, offences such as assault and harassment were added to the list of notifiable offences. Secondly, I refer to offences that used to be counted as one, offence per victim. For example, two groups of four attacking each other could now constitute eight offences where previously it would have been one of affray. That is why I cannot confirm that there has been an increase: the way in which we count these offences has changed. In addition, we have made a concerted effort to enhance the reporting of offences such as domestic violence—high levels of common assault arise from that—and sexual offending. For those reasons we hope that the figures are increasing.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that recent incidents in Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham and London are a matter of serious concern? Does she also accept that there is evidence that guns are an essential part of gang culture where drugs play an important role? Are there any specially designed school and youth club projects to divert young people from becoming involved in such crime?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, while gun crime absolutely remains an issue it is relatively rare in this country, as the noble Lord will know. The Government recognise the devastating effect of these crimes on the families of victims and on local communities where they take place. The Government are determined to tackle gun crime and the underlying culture that supports it. We are working with police and other statutory agencies, the voluntary sector and local communities in that regard. We have funded a number of programmes that seek to divert those people from that kind of activity.

Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, does my noble friend care to consider the figures for the same period in the 1970s and compare them with the following Conservative government's? She will find that whether it was a matter of gun crime or ordinary crime the Home Secretary of the day must have been scintillatingly good.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister will be well aware that for the past seven years the Government have failed to implement Parliament's requirement for a central register of guns and of applications. Does she remember that her noble friend Lord Rooker said on 27 January:
	"Our expectation is that we will probably be ready for roll-out by July this summer"?—[Official Report, 27/1/05; col. 1389.]?
	As there have been so many failures to meet undertakings given, will the noble Baroness confirm that that is still likely?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly pressed this question on a number of occasions and I know from my noble friend Lord Rooker that he has had pleasure in answering. As the noble Lord will be aware, we want to see this introduced. The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) is pressing ahead to resolve the difficulties which are principally related to in-force information systems and the amount of traffic they can handle. We shall certainly write to the noble Lord as soon as we have further information.

The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on how effective she considers police and community initiatives have been, for example, the police initiative, Operation Goodwood, in Manchester and the faith communities' initiative, Street Pastors? Will she also comment on the effectiveness over the past 12 months of the outcome of the Home Office conference, Connected, which was held in January 2004?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to the right reverend Prelate that we believe those measures have had significant and important impacts. They are a way forward. The joining together of all those working in the community to reduce the incidence of violence, particularly violence involving gun crime, has been instrumental in the drop in figures that we have seen in a number of areas. We will seek to continue that approach to meet this difficult issue.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords—

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the point that she made when she answered the noble Lord opposite? Is it really not possible that the names and addresses of those who have sporting licences for shotguns and rifles cannot be matched against the names and addresses of those who have been convicted of gun crimes? If that is so, we still do not know how many gun crimes, if any, have been committed by people who are holders of sporting gun licences.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware—I am sure that it has been debated on a number of occasions in this House—that the 43 police areas have different systems of IT; and that PITO is pressing ahead as hard as it can to resolve the difficulties, which are principally related to in-force information systems and how they correlate. Those matters are being energetically looked at, not least because I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and others will continue to press this issue, rightly, until they get an answer. That is a helpful spur to those of us who come to the Dispatch Box.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords—

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: Next Question, my Lords.

Disabled Facilities Grant: Review

Lord Rix: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the current disabled facilities grant review will consider the full costs and benefits of abolishing the means test for families with disabled children.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the current review of disabled facilities grants will examine the operation and outcomes of the programme and make proposals to improve the efficiency and fairness of the provision of housing adaptations for disabled people. That includes examining a range of options for improving the means test, including looking at the particular needs of families with a disabled child. Officials are due to report back to Ministers in May this year, and any proposals for change will be put out for consultation following that.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that there is an Early-Day Motion in another place, with nearly 150 signatures attached, asking the Government not merely to review the disabled facilities grant means test but to abolish it altogether? Will that cross-party parliamentary statement have any effect on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the good of those who wish to see the means test abolished?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware, and the department is aware, of the Early-Day Motion. I assure the noble Lord that we will certainly take account of the strongly expressed views as set out in the EDM before deciding what changes should be made to the disabled facilities grant. Clearly, it would be wrong of me today to prejudge the conclusions of the disabled facilities grant review at this stage.

Lord Renton: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind my experience? I have three daughters. The two eldest ones are very bright and have done well; they not only married well but they have done well financially. My third and youngest daughter, who cannot talk, cannot walk and is severely disabled, has cost much more in her upbringing than her two sisters have. Therefore, it seems that the Government should be favourable towards the parents of disabled children.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, clearly the noble Lord makes a point that will be widely acknowledged and accepted. I have great respect for the noble Lord and for his views on this subject. The Government have made a substantial commitment to assisting those who have a disabled member of the family. Since 1997, we have more than doubled the amount of money spent on the disabled facilities grant; we have eased the way in which the means test operates; and now we have launched the fundamental review, which looks at the whole question of the means test and the way in which it will work in the future. That is the way to make a rational approach to what is a sensitive area of public policy.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the process through which the grant is applied for is seen to be complicated? At the very least, if this review does not propose a root-and-branch reform of that process, will the Government give us a guarantee that key workers will be allocated to this process, so that people who need the money will get it and not lose it merely on page 43(b), section 6?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the view that this is a complicated grant for those who apply for it and for those who operate it. I have had personal experience of assisting constituents, and I know how difficult it can be. That is one of the reasons why the review is taking place: so that we can make the process more transparent and easier for those who need to access an important source of funding.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if ever there was a time to be generous it is when the parents of disabled children are looking for money to adapt their houses for safety and welfare? Some of those people have to carry heavy adolescents up and down the stairs to the toilet because the house is not adapted, which is a scandalous situation. The means test is an abomination because it operates very unfairly indeed, and there is plenty of evidence of that. We are not seeking its reform, but its abolition.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we accept that there are individual cases and that hardship can be caused; that is why the review is taking place. I particularly acknowledge the point with regard to those families with a disabled child suffering more than most. That is why we adjusted the means test back in 2000 to make it easier for them and more fully to recognise the increased housing costs that those families bear.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when his colleague John Spellar announced the abolition of the means test for this grant for parents of disabled children in Northern Ireland, he said:
	"There is a strong moral argument for ensuring that any barriers disabled children may face in getting facilities they need are removed"?
	Does the noble Lord not believe that that covers the rest of the country as well?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, clearly we need to have a policy that works across the piece. John Spellar's comments are part of an important commentary on the way in which the current scheme works. We inherited a means test that did not work particularly well for families with young children. That is why the review is taking place. The best thing to do at this stage is to await the outcome of the review, because I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased with that outcome.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already mentioned the considerable extra cost of raising a disabled child, which is at least three times that of other children. Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of families would pass any fair means test that took those true costs into account? Would it not be sensible entirely to abolish this damaging and extremely stressful means test?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again I go back to the point that the review is looking at the whole means test issue. It would be wrong of me to prejudge that, and I do not want to do so at the Dispatch Box today. I have great sympathy for the points that the noble Baroness has made, and I have no doubt that the review is taking those issues carefully into account.

Croatia: EU Accession Negotiations

The Earl of Dundee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there will be any delay to the start of negotiations for Croatia's entry to the European Union once the condition of full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has been met.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on 16 March, European Union Foreign Ministers adopted the mandate for Croatia's EU accession negotiations, but postponed the opening of negotiations themselves because of concerns about the lack of full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. That followed confirmation by the ICTY chief prosecutor that the negative assessment in her November 2004 report to the United Nations Security Council remained unchanged. Foreign Ministers made it clear that the EU stood ready to open negotiations with Croatia as soon as co-operation with the ICTY was full.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Group on Croatia. As that country has been judged ready in other respects, does she accept that EU negotiations should begin as soon as full co-operation with the ICTY is deemed to have occurred? Does she also agree that a timely decision on that beginning date will very much assist confidence and stability within Croatia and elsewhere, including the former Yugoslavia?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government's position is that, as soon as that full co-operation can be demonstrated, those negotiations should begin. I agree with the noble Earl's point concerning the example that that will be to other candidates. Croatia's progress towards EU membership certainly sets an example for other Balkan countries to follow. It shows others in the region that the EU will fulfil its commitments when they meet the conditions to which they have agreed. However, it is enormously important that the EU's policy on Croatia shows that there is a level playing field, and that full co-operation with the ICTY is a non-negotiable prerequisite.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, all of us agree with the Government's position. However, we also feel that Croatia's accession to the EU is a matter of some importance, provided that the conditions are met. Could we be any help to the Croatian Government in enabling them to catch the war criminal, so that they can be in compliance with the International Criminal Tribunal?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the United Kingdom fully supports the accession negotiations with Croatia once the conditions have been met. When Carla del Ponti made her report to the UN Security Council, and in her subsequent updates to the EU Foreign Ministers, she said that Mr Gotovina continued to benefit from well organised support networks in Croatia. It is very important that the Croatian authorities themselves take the initiative on the issue. She went on to say that the Croatian authorities could deliver Mr Gotovina if the necessary political will and resources were brought to bear. It is a question not of what we can do from the outside, but of the political will in Croatia.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the importance of conditionality applies not only to Croatia, but to all the members; and that, in the Copenhagen conditions, the quality and integrity of a country's judiciary, police and public administration is key?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree. I told the noble Earl a moment ago that full co-operation was a non-negotiable prerequisite. It is absolutely essential that the countries that wish to join us in the European Union understand that they must do everything in their power to comply with the ICTY. It is important that they have the internal infrastructure to do that but—as Carla del Ponti made clear, certainly in Croatia's case—it is not that they have not got that, but that they are not putting the resources in and demonstrating the real political will.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am secretary of the All-Party Group on Croatia and I have recently been in Zagreb. Must full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal be the delivery of General Gotovina to The Hague or, as some have suggested, should it be a demonstration on the part of the Croatian Government that they are doing everything within their power to do so and are simply physically unable to do it?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what has been said is that the Croatian Government must demonstrate full co-operation. However, I would not want to mislead the noble Lord. It is clearly the view of Carla del Ponti that, if the political will were there, it would be possible to send Mr Gotovina to the ICTY. She was clear when she has talked about the ability to use the resources of the country, and says that she believes that he is in reach of the authorities and relies on the networks within the country to protect him.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, given that there is widespread belief in the good faith of the Croatians in seeking membership of the European Union, would it not be valuable to have on record the exact objections of the International Criminal Tribunal, so that we can see precisely the weight that should be borne on them and the response of the Croatian Government to them?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on 8 June 2001, the International Criminal Tribunal cited crimes against humanity and violations of the laws against Mr Gotovina. He was commander for Operation Storm—the retaking of Croat forces in the Krajina region—which drove away 150,000 Serbs, plundered and destroyed property, and killed 150 individuals. A list is available from the ICTY of indictees still at large, from which the noble Lord will be able to see the main charges that the International Criminal Court wishes to pursue against the individuals, not only in Croatia but elsewhere.

Business of the House: Standing Order 43

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 43 (Postponement and advancement of business) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Unstarred Question standing in the name of the Countess of Mar to be asked in the Grand Committee before the Unstarred Question in the name of the Baroness Walmsley.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Higher Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 February be approved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to increase the funding available to higher education institutions in Northern Ireland, while safeguarding access for students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
	It is the Government's aim to increase funding for higher education in Northern Ireland in a way that takes account of two key principles: first, a larger share of the cost of higher education should fall to the direct beneficiaries of a third-level education and, secondly, a first-rate higher education system should be available to everyone who has the ability to benefit from it. The order introduces provisions broadly in line with those to come into force in England under the Higher Education Act 2004.
	In the quality of their teaching and research, universities and higher education institutions in Northern Ireland compare favourably with the better higher education institutions in the rest of the United Kingdom. The challenge for the Government is to ensure that, in the face of a changing higher education sector in England, the Northern Ireland institutions continue to contribute to economic growth, develop and enhance research excellence, fulfil their social and cultural role, provide access to high-quality education for local students and, in general, continue to compete favourably with their GB counterparts.
	Now that the Higher Education Act 2004 is on the statute book, we must respond to it in a way that benefits Northern Ireland most and does not put Northern Ireland students or universities at a disadvantage. The Act, which has its origins in the White Paper, covers a number of important developments in higher education. Of those, the introduction of variable fees and their impact on students and the higher education institutions are key issues for Northern Ireland.
	Last year, the Department for Employment and Learning held a policy consultation on proposals to increase university funding through the introduction of variable tuition fees. The consultation also covered proposals to introduce access agreements and a review of the student complaints system. Following the policy consultation, the draft legislative proposals were issued for public consultation. There was significant interest in and reaction to the proposals, particularly in relation to variable fees. Much of that reaction was critical, but no viable alternative was proposed.
	I turn to the detail of the draft order. Part II sets out the provisions for student fees. They will enable higher education institutions to set their own fees up to a basic amount specified in regulations. If institutions wish to charge fees above that rate, they can do so only if they have in force a plan—also known as an access agreement under this part of the order—approved by the Department for Employment and Learning, and then only up to a higher amount also specified in regulations. The department will monitor approved plans. Should an institution breach its plan, the department may choose not to renew, or it may impose financial sanctions.
	In Part III, the order includes provisions for preventing student loan debt forming part of a bankrupt's estate. That reflects the non-commercial nature of a student loan and closes an existing loophole whereby student loans are written off on bankruptcy.
	The order provides for the sharing of information between student support authorities with the consent of the individual. That will streamline the process, in keeping with the Government's aim of requiring individuals to provide information once only.
	The order includes provisions for facilitating the deferral of payment of tuition fees by allowing student loan payments to be made directly to institutions, so that they can receive fee payments up front and students can repay later.
	Although the provisions follow the Higher Education Act, the legislation has been tailored to reflect specific needs in Northern Ireland. The draft order does not replicate all the provisions of the Act.
	With regard to access agreements, the order provides that, in Northern Ireland, the Department for Employment and Learning will undertake the access regulatory function and will take advice as necessary from the Office for Fair Access. On student complaints, the Government have accepted the weight of argument from consultees in favour of change and of making the system more independent of the institutions. However, the intention is to retain the visitor system in Northern Ireland until the institutions are restored and to leave the final decision on the way forward to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	In considering the introduction of variable fees in Northern Ireland, it is important to remember that up to 30 per cent of Northern Ireland students go to universities in Great Britain: some to do courses that are not available locally; some to widen their horizons; and others because their grades are not good enough to meet the entry requirements in Northern Ireland. Whatever the reason, unless we act now to introduce a deferred fee system many of those students or their families will be forced to pay up to £3,000 up front each year from 2006. It would not be right to allow students from Northern Ireland to face such a barrier. It would be perverse that Northern Ireland students should pay more to improve standards in English universities while their counterparts studying in Northern Ireland paid less to invest in the future success of their own universities. It is even more unacceptable that the Government should provide the additional funding to support that, in effect funding institutions in England while denying the same level of fee income to Northern Ireland institutions.
	The initial reaction of many people to the introduction of deferred fees is that they will add to the existing burden of student debt. However, a student loan is one of the most generous forms of credit available. In contrast to commercial loans, the only interest charged is the rate of inflation, so that we can be sure that the loan repaid is equal in real terms to the amount borrowed. Graduates will have to pay the money back only when they can afford to do so. If income falls below £15,000, repayments stop. No one will be penalised for taking time out for any reason, such as to have a family, to work part time, or if he or she becomes unemployed.
	The Government want to increase the funding available to the higher education sector in Northern Ireland in a way that ensures that up-front fees are abolished and that graduates take on a greater share of the costs. However, the Government also recognise the need to ensure that financial help continues to be provided for students who need it most by maintaining a system of student support that is as favourable as present arrangements.
	In addition, institutions charging variable fees will have to introduce access agreements, which will require them to tell students and prospective students what help is available. It will include a commitment to provide an access bursary to students from low-income backgrounds.
	If our higher education institutions in Northern Ireland are to sustain—indeed, to build upon—the high standards of teaching and research in the increasingly competitive global higher education sector, they need the extra investment that the proposals will bring. The Government firmly believe that that is the best way to secure the future of our highly valued higher education sector in Northern Ireland and to ensure access to all those who have the potential to benefit from higher education, regardless of background or personal circumstances.
	It is the intention that, subject to the approval of both Houses, the order can be made at a Privy Council meeting by the end of the Session. That will give time for preparations to be made so that it can become operative from September 2006 to coincide with the start of the academic year. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 February be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert, "but this House regrets that the Government have not provided the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to express their opinion on the matter, either through democratically elected institutions or by means of a referendum".

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for presenting the order. We are drawing our relationship to a close with the coming election, and it is perhaps a sad note for me that I am more strongly opposed than I have ever been to the politics of the noble Baroness's party. However, I assure her and your Lordships that there is nothing personal in my remarks about the order.
	This is probably the worst example of the Government's performance so far in managing Northern Ireland. It is wrong for a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office to force Labour Party dogma-type policy on an unwilling population. On page 20 of the Labour Party's manifesto, "Ambitions for Britain" in 2001, it states:
	"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them".
	The Government have clearly done the reverse in the Higher Education Act, which battled its way—an appropriate phrase—through both Houses.
	Paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
	"Nine responses were received to the consultation on the Proposal for an Order in Council. The respondents raised no new issues and reinforced their position as stated during the policy consultation".
	We know that that was all anti, so there was nothing else to say.
	My honourable friend David Lidington in another place and I have consulted widely among Northern Ireland political parties. I cannot say where the Sinn Fein party stands on the issue, as I tend to ignore it at this stage of its career, but, basically all Northern Ireland political parties are opposed to the order.
	In another place, Her Majesty's Government lost the vote on the order in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Two weeks ago, the Government rammed—and I mean "rammed"—the order through the other place with the support of 44 MPs who had opposed the same order for the same policy for England. I know from discussions that some of those MPs were somewhat confused and some wish to retract, regretting that they voted with the Government. Her Majesty's Government achieved the order by a majority of only five, despite their overall majority of 200. This is not a very popular order anywhere. Those who supported it included Scottish MPs, although the legislation does not apply to Scotland.
	Furthermore, I have had correspondence with the Northern Ireland Student Movement, the Convenor of which is in your Lordships' House. He is not sitting below Bar because he is a single parent and is in the Lords' Families Room watching this debate—that is how strongly the students feel. I quote from his letter to me:
	"I am concerned by the way the current Government is attempting to force through legislation in Northern Ireland against the wishes of the entire Community, against the wishes of Elected Representatives and against the wishes and efforts of the Student Movement".
	Later in the letter he says:
	"The Student Movement believes that top-up fees will be a disaster for higher education and will lead to further entrenchment of educational inequality".
	A paragraph later, he states:
	"In addition, introducing higher fees will saddle students with thousands of pounds more debt—Charles Clarke MP, during his tenure as Education Secretary himself admitted students will graduate £21,000 in the red".
	That is as stated by Damien Kavanagh, the Convenor of the Northern Ireland Student Movement.
	I think that I have produced some considerable evidence that this is a bad order for Northern Ireland. It is not wanted, and it is being forced by an arrogant, over-bearing Government on a community which is democratically powerless and helpless. In my opinion—I hope that your Lordships will agree—it is disgraceful, unpopular and unwanted. Furthermore, I think it is a disgrace that it should be forced on our population by a Minister, Mr Gardiner, who clearly cares not a jot for the student population of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert, "but this House regrets that the Government have not provided the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to express their opinion on the matter, either through democratically elected institutions or by means of a referendum".—(Lord Glentoran.)

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I speak in support of the reasoned amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. As he said, when the Assembly was in operation it rejected the idea of top-up fees, and yet the Government are seeking to impose an English policy on Northern Ireland. Of course, both Wales and Scotland have chosen not to go down the top-up fees route.
	It is quite inappropriate for the Government to dictate to Northern Ireland in this way. The measure is also inappropriate for Northern Ireland because, as a region, it has larger-than-average family size and lower-than-average family income compared with the UK as a whole.
	At a Limavady College of Further and Higher Education graduation, the acting vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster, of which I was once vice-chancellor, Professor Richard Barnett, said:
	"The Government must recognise that debt aversion is a greater roadblock to participation in higher education in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the UK. It must also accept the evidence that the proposed fees, without a proper student maintenance package, will significantly affect participation from average middle class families as well as those from social disadvantaged groups".
	He went on to say:
	"Academic ability and not affordability must govern access to higher education in Northern Ireland".
	We have heard all about the palaver of the access requirements that will be applied to the Northern Ireland universities. If that is the case, fairly those universities will want an increase in the number of students from the private sector because almost all the students in Northern Ireland come from state schools.
	Northern Ireland has the highest participation rate in tertiary education in the UK and it has a most highly trained labour force. Both those will be put at risk if top-up fees are introduced. I beg the Government to think again.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly by way of a question. Why on earth are we who represent Northern Ireland both in this House and in the other place lectured continually along the lines of, "For goodness sake, all you parties in Northern Ireland should agree and then Her Majesty's Government can take notice and act thereon"? Here, we have a situation in which all the parties in Northern Ireland agree right across the board that this is an unwanted and unworkable piece of legislation, which has already been condemned without a single recommending voice. I hope that even at this very late stage—I concede that it is a late stage—second thoughts will be devoted to the matter and that a suitable amendment will be produced.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, while what I have to say in my opening remarks my not be directly related to this order, one cannot touch on the topic of third-level education in Northern Ireland without taking the opportunity to condemn, without equivocation, those thuggish students whose behaviour in the area of Belfast known as "the Holy Lands" brings misery to ordinary residents in the area.
	I hope that government, through the Department for Employment and Learning and with the co-operation of the universities, will move positively to bring this dangerous misbehaviour to an end and to penalise the minority of students who make it more difficult to argue the case that I espouse here today.
	However, the majority of our university students are hard-working and responsible.
	As noble Lords will be aware, this order, when put to a vote, was defeated in another place on 20 January by 11 votes to 10. The Government either expected the absence of the DUP, whose Members routinely do not turn up for committee debates, or perhaps some Labour Members were as keen to see the Government deliver the message they really believe in via the back door of Northern Ireland. Either way, defeated the Government were, and I sincerely hope that they have heeded that message. That would be a practical demonstration of what I have heard argued by the Government in your Lordships' House on several occasions in the recent past about the primacy of the other place.
	Again, I must register my total frustration and dissatisfaction with the way in which this legislation has been dealt with in the absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Had the Assembly been in place, our regional representatives would have debated this issue at Stormont, as it was debated in Wales and Scotland, and they would have passed legislation that was appropriate for Northern Ireland. Hence, I am surely justified in repeating the call by my colleagues in another place to set aside this order and to leave this issue to be considered at some future date by Northern Ireland's elected representatives.
	There is no doubt that over the past 10 years university education has expanded rapidly and more students are undertaking university education than ever before. That does not, however, mean that more students and parents than ever before can afford the spiralling costs. It is fundamentally important, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom, that those from financially less well off backgrounds do not fall by the wayside and lose their right to higher education due to the market forces that now dominate the higher education sector.
	We all understand the arguments for extending student loans for those who can afford them, but extending such measures across the board will certainly out-price many students from university education altogether. Noble Lords should remember that, although we have full employment in Northern Ireland, we do not have parity with Great Britain in the level of earnings.
	As my noble friend Lord Molyneaux has already pointed out, all Northern Ireland political parties are united in opposition to this order, as may be wished in other spheres. What is the sense of a bright young student winning a place to go to Queen's or the University of Ulster, and then having to drop out or defer because he cannot afford the college fees?
	There is a duty of care on the Government. They will be held to account by the electorate on their promises to create opportunity for all in the higher education sector and to ensure that, on the one hand, talented students from less privileged schools are encouraged to apply to the best universities and that, on the other, the state affords them the financial help to do so. That means the Government setting aside substantial financial aid to ensure that students from less financially privileged backgrounds have the potential in real terms, not just in theory, to achieve their full potential in our education system.
	Our university system is the envy of Europe. If one looks at the world ranking of universities, in overall terms only UK institutions are serious competitors in a US-dominated world of education. It is great that, due to their global reputation for excellence, our universities—Queen's and the University of Ulster—attract students from the four corners of the globe. That is good for our economy, prestige and education system. But I implore this Government to ensure that our own students are not priced out of this market due to that excellence and the demand for places at these universities by the world's brightest youngsters.
	The Ulster Unionist Party remains fully committed to maintaining free and fair access to university for all. Can the Government detail the bursaries that they intend to establish to ensure that such access is maintained if they continue in their effort to railroad through top-up fees?
	I know many young people who do not have the benefit of family wealth as they set off on their university careers. Many students work 20 or more hours a week to make ends meet while they are taking their degrees. Of course, students should pay their way. I had to do so 50 years ago, and I would be the first to encourage young people to get a part-time job while studying. But it borders on pointless when keeping a job in a local pub becomes more of a priority then attending lectures and writing essays. At the same time, those who can afford it will be spending their free time undertaking unpaid internships and work that benefits them academically.
	Do not let this be another classic example of how direct rule fails Northern Ireland. I urge the House to reject this order and to vote for the amendment.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, I know nothing of Northern Ireland and we have had an authoritative statement from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, about the circumstances there. My only reason for intervening is that we are veering into the general issue of whether top-up fees are helpful or disastrous for universities. In the rest of the United Kingdom, Scotland is still considering them, but Wales is switching to the system.
	The view of those in charge of our universities and of the organisation that represents them is that there is a desperate problem of underfunding. We cannot keep up the standard of universities—I am sure that this applies in Northern Ireland—without a complete change of policy. The alternatives are a major increase in direct taxation, which the Liberal Democrat Party proposes—but its arithmetic has been questioned—or some kind of share that gives a substantial increase in funding and makes provision for the means of students. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, did not show a full awareness of the schemes for bursaries and remissions that mean that the increase in fees for poorer students will be negligible.
	Universities in England have already accepted and welcomed this proposal. University institutions in Wales have also accepted it. I think, to coin a phrase, that there is no alternative. I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that there are special social and economic circumstances in Northern Ireland that change the context of the argument. But it seems to me to be beyond dispute that the general principle of top-up fees is essential for maintaining the international quality and competitiveness of British universities—and I speak as a former vice-chancellor.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I cannot speak with any knowledge of Northern Ireland but, as one who has had some part in proposing income-contingent contributions by graduates to the funding of higher education, I would like to offer a word or two.
	I agree that there is a great need to increase the level of funding for universities for the benefit of the students who attend them and for the quality of the educational experience from which they benefit. I have always thought that to seek a contribution from graduates on an income-contingent basis is equitable because, unlike the health service, which is available to us as of right, higher education is only available to those who can qualify for entry.
	It is not available to all, but it conveys real advantages to those who go. First, it increases their ability to engage fully in life and to contribute to life. Secondly, it gives them the opportunity of more interesting jobs. Thirdly, it makes them less vulnerable to unemployment. Fourthly, for the majority, it gives them the expectation of a higher income. When I chaired an independent committee of inquiry into this some years ago, we found that there was a positive return. I am not specifically arguing on the Northern Ireland issue, but on the general issue of whether this policy is fair. There is a case in equity for asking for graduates to contribute on an income-contingent basis.
	While it is right to ask graduates to contribute, the student has no money, especially those who come from poor homes. It is right that those who come from poor homes should receive a grant towards their living costs. For those from the poorest homes in England, that grant, as a result of debates in both Houses of Parliament, is to be £2,700 per year. In addition, there are to be loans at highly subsidised rates of interest. Indeed, the loans for tuition fees are, as has been said, at a zero real rate of interest. I was in Germany last week, debating these issues with members of the German university sector, students and government. Professor Nicholas Barr of the LSE was arguing strongly that the terms of these loans were very generous.
	I am not arguing about Northern Ireland, but about whether these arrangements are equitable. I say that they are equitable. I hope that the House will be aware of that dimension of the issue in relation to other members of our community who do not have the opportunity to go to university.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I apologise for being a few minutes late for the consideration of this order. I have a specific question to ask the Leader of the House which relates to Northern Ireland.
	I have no wish to rehearse the arguments we heard when we considered the Higher Education Bill and the provisions as they affected England. However, at that time a number of contributions were made on all sides of the House on behalf of part-time students and those who were studying through the Open University. The Government gave a commitment that they would look at the issue. They have not.
	I have had correspondence from the Open University and others. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, making an impassioned plea in her role as Chancellor of the Open University. There were many speeches about the position of institutions which had part-time students. Therefore, those students in Northern Ireland who wish to study with the Open University, or at institutions which are providing part-time courses, will be interested to hear what the Government will do about the problem which they have created by introducing this scheme. The universities will benefit from the additional income from the top-up fees. There is no such provision for the Open University.
	I realise that we are entering a sensitive political period but when I listened to the news on the radio this morning I heard the Government saying how committed they are to vocational training, education, and creating a country which is able to compete with China. It was a major theme of the Chancellor's Budget so I am sure the Leader of the House will not have come to the House to discuss the matter without being able to tell us exactly what will be done for those students who are at the Open University and in part-time courses.
	When the assurance was given from the Front Bench, I took it in good faith that something would be done about the problem. The days of this Government are numbered and, therefore, they should get on with it.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, like many of my colleagues, I know little about education in Northern Ireland. However, the Government are committed to devolved government and to take such an autocratic act—as they are taking over grammar schools in Northern Ireland—is wrong. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. It is an autocratic act. Considering that they are negotiating, they should listen to the parties in Northern Ireland. Since a devolved assembly is proposed, it is—dare I say this in a quite emotional way?—quite disgraceful to impose the abolition of grammar schools and this measure. Therefore my vote is decided.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, those of us who spent some time last week in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee are well aware of the size of the public sector in Northern Ireland. The other side of that coin relates to the size of the private sector. From where does the Minister believe that bursary funds are likely to come in Northern Ireland? The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, is in her place. I appreciate her work and concern for the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. That body has now been in existence for 25 years. It has been trying to build up a crock of gold in order to use the income for the support of community causes across Northern Ireland. An interesting factor is that much of that crock of gold has come from the public sector because of the difficulties of raising money from the private sector.
	The question I stress is this. From where will bursary funds come for two universities in a place where it is very difficult to raise money?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I know that this a highly emotive issue, as was made clear when we discussed the Higher Education Act in this House. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that I welcome his opening remarks. Despite the differences that there have been across the House on Northern Ireland business, our debates have always been conducted in a constructive way. I entirely appreciate that the noble Lord's disagreements with the policy are not disagreements with me personally although, of course, I speak on behalf of the Government.
	I recognise that it would have been preferable for this legislation to be taken forward by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was also concerned about that issue. However, I emphasise that the policy proposals and the draft legislation have been fully consulted on in Northern Ireland although, again, I recognise that the outcome of the consultation was negative and the reaction critical. But I also have to say that no viable alternatives were proposed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised a concern about a possible rise in the level of student debt. I recognise that student debt is a matter of concern to those who believe that the proposal will be a deterrent to higher education, particularly for those from lower income backgrounds. The proposals will make higher education free at the point of access and fair at the point of repayment. No student or parent will have to pay any fees before or while studying at university. Graduates will have to repay only once they start earning over £15,000 and then at a very reasonable rate linked to their income.
	Perhaps I may also say this to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux. The key point is that there is no "do nothing" option for Northern Ireland. The Higher Education Act will fundamentally change the way in which higher education is funded in England. In the absence of this order no fee deferral arrangements exist which would enable the Department for Employment and Learning to provide funding to the institutions in the first instance to the extent that students choose to defer their fees. That means that almost 7,000 Northern Ireland students who go to English universities would have to pay the new fees, up to £3,000 up front, each year, from 2006.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, was concerned about applying English solutions to a Northern Ireland issue. We have taken the opportunity to tailor this legislation to reflect the specific needs of Northern Ireland. For example, we have not replicated the provisions in relation to the Office for Fair Access and the establishment of an office of the independent adjudicator to hear student complaints. The noble Lord was also concerned about comparisons with Scotland and Wales. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Morgan picked up on these points and sought to clarify them.
	The Scottish Executive has announced that new students studying at a Scottish university will have to pay higher tuition fees from 2006–07. The level of tuition fee has not yet been set but is expected to be between £1,700 and £1,900 each year. This would mean that a four-year degree course in Scotland would cost approximately the same as a three-year course in England. Of course, there may also be a separate, higher tuition fee level set for medical students.
	As regards Wales, a review is currently being undertaken under Professor Rees of fees and student support. That review will report in due course. Decisions will then be taken with respect to the ongoing fee level in Wales.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised the importance of looking at socio-economic differences. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, spoke of spiralling costs for students. I am of course aware of the socio-economic differences between Northern Ireland and England and that there is a higher participation rate in Northern Ireland. The proposals will help across the range, but will seek to ensure that access to higher education is protected for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There will be no financial barrier to students choosing a particular course or university as they do not have to pay before they study or while studying.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Perhaps my mental arithmetic is not very good, but when she said that for someone doing a four-year course at a Scottish university the cost would be approximately the same as for someone at an English university on the basis of fees of £1,400 to £1,700—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I said between £1,700 and £1,900.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, even at £1,700 that would be £6,800. Contrary to what the Government expected, the vast majority—more than 95 per cent—of English universities are going to charge fees of £3,000. That is £9,000. And £6,800 is not equal to £9,000.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are talking about variable fees, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows. Fee levels will be set by individual universities. I accept that if universities set fees at the top of the variable fee range, that will be the case; if not, the comparison is a valid one.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, but a survey released the other day shows that 95 per cent of English universities are choosing to charge the maximum fee of £3,000. I know that is not what the Government expected—indeed, when we discussed the matter they said that it would not be the position—but it is what has happened. The noble Baroness's briefing probably reflects what the department thought might happen, as opposed to what is happening outside in the real world.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not accept that. Universities have made it clear that they may charge different variable fees for different courses and may not charge the same fee across the board. We could debate the issue endlessly across the Dispatch Box, but I think that my point is right: it depends on where universities choose to set the variable fee. Of course if they set the fee at the higher rate, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is quite right: the comparison is not accurate. It depends on the point at which that variable fee is made. That is the point I was making.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, in particular asked what the access agreements would cover and what would be included in bursaries. An access agreement should cover, as a minimum, university plans for bursaries and other financial support for students; any outreach work planned by the university to encourage more potential students to consider higher education; financial information on funding available for prospective students; and university objectives to measure how its plans to safeguard and improve access are being achieved.
	On the level of student support, it is proposed to apply similar arrangements to those proposed for England. For example, there will no longer be a requirement to pay tuition fees in advance. Instead, students could defer payment until they leave higher education. Since there will be fee deferral arrangements, the fee remission grant will be discontinued. A single larger non-repayable departmental higher education bursary of up to £3,200 will be available instead. Students can, if they wish, choose to use that to pay part or all their tuition fees. The current maintenance loan will be retained.
	My noble friend Lord Morgan and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made reference to the importance of quality and competitiveness in universities. I agree with my noble friend Lord Morgan about the importance of changing policy and about consistency across the board in relation to that. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has extensive experience of these matters—far more than I have. I listened to the noble Lord's remarks with interest. I was struck not only by the advantages set out by the noble Lord of this kind of system, but also by his remarks about the importance of there being an equitable system.
	The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised the issue of the Open University and the commitments that were made during discussion of the Higher Education Bill. My understanding is that the arrangements for part-time students in Northern Ireland are not being changed, but that within the order there is a reserved power to provide part-time students with fee loans which would enable them to defer paying their fees if such a policy direction were decided at a later date.
	On the possibility of extending fee deferral to part-time students, the Open University has been commissioned to carry out a survey into the incomes of part-time students and the costs they incur while studying. I was struck by the noble Lord saying that he had recently received a communication on this from the Open University. I should be concerned if there were some cross-communication here, but my understanding is that the Open University is conducting this research on behalf of the Government.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. What the Open University needs is not to conduct a survey; it needs resources to be able to provide the teaching for the students. The problem for the Open University is that it will not benefit from the income which comes from the students through top-up fees. It therefore has no additional source of income.
	During the consideration of the Bill, my understanding was that Ministers gave an assurance, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, but also to other noble Lords, that this matter would be urgently addressed. That needs to happen before the coming academic year. Conducting a survey will not do anything for the Open University in giving it more money, which is what it requires.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I think that there are two elements to the issue. One is on the commitments which were given during discussion of the Higher Education Bill. Consideration continues within the Department for Education and Skills on these matters with respect to the Open University. On the other side, the Open University has been commissioned to conduct some research which will assist the Government in making further decisions on the matter. So there are two different elements to this.
	Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whose comments were scathing about the Government's commitment to education, that we have demonstrated that commitment, not only in the additional resources that we have made available for education, but also on the up-scaling for vocational training. That was present not only in the DfES five-year plan that was launched, but also in the commitments made this morning by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has very strong views on these matters, which he has expressed in this House on a number of occasions. I note the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, about the source of bursary funds. As a result of the proposed access agreements, universities will provide bursaries from income raised through higher fees. That is not therefore dependent on support from the private sector. The proposal is that it would come from the income raised through higher fees.
	I think that I have addressed all the points which have been raised.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, on the issue of the Scottish figure versus the English figure—the 6.8 versus nine—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, was right in saying that all but seven of the English universities have opted for the full £3,000. That would be offset to a substantial extent, however, by the bursaries they intend to give.
	I have heard—my memory may not be correct—that the total income they expect from the £3,000 is £1.2 billion, but there will be something over £200 million in the form of bursaries, which helps to bridge the gap. It may be that, in Scotland, the final decision on what English students will be charged will not be taken until the sums are done.
	Sorry, am I going on too long?

Noble Lords: Yes.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I did not expect to rerun the debate on top-up fees, as has happened. The purpose of my amendment was, and still is, to make the point that Northern Ireland should have its own right and time to make its own decisions on top-up fees. The debate has just demonstrated what little certainty and strong feelings there are all around the House on this matter. It has proven, as I said in my opening remarks, that a Government with a majority of 200 in the other place can get its legislation with a majority of only five, supported by Scottish MPs to whom that legislation did not apply.
	It would be wrong, overbearing and arrogant of this Government—and for Mr Gardiner, MP—to say "We are going to enforce this on Northern Ireland now, come what may". I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 168; Not-Contents, 150.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill

Report received.
	Clause 4 ["Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs"]:

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) Provision shall be made to ensure that revenue independence and methods as regards investigation and enforcement in the interest of the taxpayer are retained."

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment proposes as a matter of principle to ensure that provision be made for retention of the extant Revenue independence and methods as regards investigation and enforcement, in the interests of the taxpayer, under the merger with Customs and Excise to form the HMRC—having particular regard to the coercive powers of investigation of Customs and Excise.
	The amendment reflects the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and noble Lords well versed in the expertise of the relevant arcane arts—the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Sheldon, Lord Newby and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. My noble friend warned against resort to draconian powers under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, referring to the sensitivity of information and the importance of a proportionate approach, which had attracted attention in the first JCHR report, as engaging Article 8. My noble friend also sought clarification on the making of extra-statutory concessions.
	The substance of the common concern arises from the diversity of culture and working methods between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, a veritable past master in these arts, said:
	"It is not easy to see how these two different kinds of expertise will survive, still less be transferred with success from one part of a new department to another. It is still more difficult, given the present level of work by each of these two departments which are under considerable strain".—[Official Report, 7/2/05; col. 597.]
	This amendment seeks to retain that diversity of culture for the Revenue. For example, there is the writ of assistance, which is only available to Customs and Excise on application to the Queen's Remembrancer, a senior Master sitting in the Law Courts. Once granted, it serves as a warrant for forcible entry and as a general search warrant, free from further judicial control—even if nothing sought is found. I am anxious that those procedures should not be resorted to on Revenue enforcement.
	The amendment is not concerned with extra statutory concessions as such, but only with retention of the Revenue culture on investigation and enforcement, which is, and was, a matter of common concern in your Lordships' House. On 4 March the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sent a long and complicated letter in reply to a request from my noble friend Lady Noakes concerning extra statutory concessions, which, with the greatest respect, would not appear to be relevant to the limited scope of this amendment. I have the document with me, but it is far too complex to read. I beg to move.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, throughout our consideration of the Bill we have raised concerns about how the new HMRC will operate—in particular, whether the Inland Revenue's approach, which might be characterised as "business-friendly", certainly in comparison with Customs and Excise, will be preserved in the new organisation.
	The integration's impact on taxpayers has never fully been explained.We believe that the thoughts that lie behind my noble friend's amendments are very sound. I am less clear that the form of the amendment captures what we need, but I freely accept that my legal knowledge is way below that of my noble friend, so I shall be interested to hear the debate on his amendment.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, both in principle and in detail. I suggest—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has anticipated what I might say—that the amendment is defective. However, if it were rewritten to achieve what I believe to be the noble Lord's aim, it would in fact prevent the new department doing exactly what the O'Donnell review recommended it should do, which I have understood up to now has been widely supported.
	I shall examine what the amendment provides. It refers to,
	"revenue independence and methods as regards investigation and enforcement".
	As I understand it, from what the noble Lord has said, he wants to preserve what he regards as the lighter touch that folklore has it the Revenue provides, compared with that of the draconian Customs and Excise.
	I want to make three points. First, I want to challenge the assumption on which the noble Lord puts forward that proposition; secondly, I want to point out why the amendment is defective; and, thirdly, I want to come back to why this would defeat the object of the Bill. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if it achieved what I believe the noble Lord wants to achieve, it would wreck what is proposed in the Bill. I hope your Lordships would not want to see that.
	As far as the assumptions are concerned, it is wrong to characterise Revenue powers as soft and Customs powers as draconian. Customs and Excise has some powers to act rapidly, powers that are appropriate to it because of its duty to prevent smuggling and illegal importations, but which would not be appropriate for certain functions carried out by the Revenue. I have talked before about the ring-fencing of powers, and the powers used would be appropriate to the function being carried out.
	Secondly, I do not think it is right to characterise the two departments as having contrasting cultures. Difference of approach can be found within the organisations. Those who have had dealings with them would probably agree that the approach of the Special Compliance Office of the Inland Revenue, which deals with serious tax fraud, is different from that of officers in the child benefit office or the tax credit office. That flows from the nature of the functions they are carrying out.
	Surely the key point here is not the variations people perceive in the present departments, but the powers that are appropriate to the functions they are carrying out. Noble Lords who have participated in the passage of this Bill so far know that a review of those powers started last week. It has been referred to throughout the passage of the Bill here and in another place and will ensure ultimately that the powers that are available are appropriate to the functions.
	Culture is very much in the eye of the beholder. I was struck by the fact that, at one stage in our debate, there seemed to be a difference of view between noble Lords as to which was the softer touch, Revenue or Customs. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, who had experience from having worked in Customs and Excise, took a different view on that from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who had lots of experience of dealing with it professionally as the Inland Revenue across the table. I am told, however, that only last week my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a representation pleading for the Inland Revenue to be more like Customs and Excise.
	Thirdly, the management of the new department is there to ensure that the overarching culture of the department is built on the soundest traditions of public service of the predecessor departments. That is a serious point. We have previously agreed that what is most important in the culture of both departments, which they share, is honesty and integrity. Plainly, that will continue.
	I have just been handed a note, which I had previously seen, saying that the review had started last week. Either I misread it or it is incorrect, but, in any event, I ask noble Lords to ignore what I said about the review having started last week. It has not.
	Regarding the technical defects, with respect, I do not see how the words used by the noble Lord capture what he is trying to enact as the sense of current Inland Revenue practice. It is not possible to prescribe culture by words in legislation. There is no detail, if I may be permitted respectfully to say so, in the amendment on how the culture of the Revenue is to be preserved. The amendment just states:
	"Provision shall be made to ensure that revenue independence and methods . . . are retained".
	The only way this could be achieved in practice would be by retaining separate management chains for the functions that were inherited from each of the old departments. That would prevent the collaborative working and integration that this Bill is all about.
	I suppose that what the noble Lord means by the word "independence" is exactly that. While there would be integration, the Revenue should remain independent. That is directly contrary to the whole thrust and purpose of the Bill, which has been widely supported, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and many others. To enact something effective—which, with respect, this amendment is not—to keep the Revenue separate would defeat the object of the Bill.
	I hope that all noble Lords will agree that the integration or, if one prefers, the merger—we have debated which word is appropriate—should deliver among other things a better and more flexible use of resources, a more focused approach to compliance throughout the taxation system and improvements to customer service and compliance costs. None of that will be possible if the functions inherited from the Inland Revenue are to be kept in some sort of isolation tank.
	Although I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for the thought and care with which he moved his amendment, I am afraid that I cannot accept it, and I urge your Lordships to reject it, should the noble Lord wish to press it.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I rise briefly to point out one or two of the problems that we are going to see, as I understand it, as a result of the two bodies coming together—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for intervening, but once a Minister has sat down on Report, there can be no speaker other than the mover of the amendment.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I have just one or two points to make. The coming together of the two departments will create some problems, and the safeguards that are going to be required are obvious.
	Will my noble and learned friend take account of the fact that the Inland Revenue has a lighter touch because it deals with matters in the past and has time to consider them, whereas Customs and Excise is dealing with something that can disappear? Once goods have been smuggled in, it is difficult to get hold of them subsequently. The Inland Revenue has a lighter touch. Will my noble and learned friend take account of the fact that, when the two departments come together—I agree that they need to do so—there will be a danger in the speed with which they come together? Will my noble and learned friend take account also of the fact that we will need time to take those matters forward to preserve the honesty and integrity that he mentioned?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have been patient in listening because it may be that I stood up too quickly and the noble Lord intended to speak before I spoke. In any event, I can deal very briefly with his points.
	On the first, as I have said, what matters is the function for which the power is exercised. The noble Lord is of course right that when you are dealing with a matter of importation or smuggling, you may have to act quickly, and acting quickly often needs a power that is forceful and robust, whereas if you are dealing with matters after the event, you may be able to take a more leisurely approach. That can apply just as much to a Revenue function as to a Customs function, where customs is dealing with something other than importation. We should not try to divide rigidly any of those approaches, but recognise that what matters is the functions and the powers that are appropriate to them.
	On the noble Lord's second point, I have repeatedly said in this debate that we entirely recognise that care must be taken, and great thought be given, to the way in which the integration takes place. That is apparent in the workings of the report of Mr Gus O'Donnell that preceded the Bill and in all the other things that I have said about how we propose to go forward and effect the merger.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I shall take very little time. This is not really the occasion on which we should engage in any detailed discussion.
	The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General misunderstands the purport of the amendment, which is akin to that of a purpose clause to ordain in principle that subsequent provision shall be made. I do not criticise the noble and learned Lord for not seeing it in that way, because, apparently, my drafting was so defective that nobody could probably appreciate anything. However, that was, and will remain, the substance of the amendment. It is limited; it does not wreck the totality of the Bill. It concerns only investigation and enforcement. Of course, I will go away and consider everything that has been said. If so advised, I shall return at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) Provision shall be made to ensure that—
	(a) regulations subject to the affirmative approval of each House of Parliament are introduced to afford adequate protection by way of safeguards for use and disclosure of confidential information given by a taxpayer;
	(b) confidential information given by a taxpayer for one purpose shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose, save in pursuance of an order of a court which shall have regard to whether there has been compliance with such safeguards."

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment is a very different kettle of fish. It would establish a principle. I hope that the drafting is sufficiently clear in this case. Like Amendment No. 1, it is a probing amendment to establish a principle; namely, that once the Bill is enacted, provision shall be made to ensure that,
	"regulations subject to the affirmative approval of each House of Parliament are introduced to afford adequate protection by way of safeguards for use and disclosure of confidential information given by a taxpayer"
	and that,
	"confidential information given by a taxpayer for one purpose shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose, save in pursuance of an order of a court which shall have regard to whether there has been compliance with such safeguards".
	On this matter, which affects the structure of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord and I have already clashed on more than one occasion. On the substance of the amendment, there is a fundamental disagreement between the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. It may be resolved only by your Lordships, as confirmed by the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published only today. Put simply, the first question arising is whether some measures of safeguard for the taxpayer, as recognised by the ECHR, should be included in the Bill, in accordance of the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	The second question is whether confidential information given by a taxpayer should be assured, in accordance with Article 8.2 of the ECHR, by some form of legal control established by the Bill. The final question is whether the HMRC, as a public authority for the purposes of Article 8.2, should interfere with the taxpayer's exercise of this right, except in accordance with the law and, if necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public safety, the well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health, morals and the rights and freedoms of others. Let us face it, none of these exceptions applies—or begins to apply—to the ordinary, run-of-the-mill case of assessing and collecting taxes, and making an arrangement for composition, or otherwise.
	There is little to be said before one comes to some extracts, relevant to this amendment, which I propose to read from the two reports. The first report, as of 2 February, was sent to the Minister with a letter seeking a reasoned response to our reply and conclusions. That is at Appendix 1, on page 30 of our first report—House of Lords Paper 41. The reply, of 10 February, wholly failed to engage with the substance of any of our representations. That was observed in the second report, which maintained and reverted to the advice already given on the first report. In the second report, that letter is included as Appendix 1, on page 26. This is not some idea of mine, although I was admittedly a member of the committee and signed both reports. I do not always sign these reports, unless I agree with them.
	In the first report, No. 41, there are about five or six extracts relevant to this amendment. Paragraph 1.18 states:
	"We would remind the Government that the onus is on it to specify the precise aims which are relied upon in Article 8(2) as justifying the interference with Article 8 rights".
	Paragraph 1.23 states:
	"Our principal concern is with the uncertain scope of the 'public interest disclosure' exception . . . The kinds of purposes for which public interest disclosure is permitted are not . . . defined on the face of the Bill, but left to be specified in regulations made by the Treasury . . . the regulation-making power is extremely wide . . . there is nothing to restrict the Treasury's power to specify a public interest justifying disclosure of confidential information".
	Paragraph 1.24 states:
	"The definitions which have been left to regulations should be on the face of the Bill".
	I think my noble friend Lord Kingsland said as much the other day.
	Paragraph 1.27 states:
	"The Government rely on the fact that when making disclosures of confidential information, HMRC will . . . be under a duty to comply with both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998. While this is legally correct, in practical terms it does not provide an answer to the lack of effective safeguards for the reasons pointed out"—
	in the Newton review—
	"in the context of that Act's provision for public bodies to disclose information to assist criminal investigations".
	What was said in the Newton report applies to this Bill:
	"'The protection offered by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998 seems to us to be illusory since the burden will lie on the individual to complain about the disclosure of their confidential information in circumstances where, almost by definition, he or she will be unlikely to know that disclosure has occurred'".
	Paragraph 1.28 states:
	"The applicability of both the HRA 1998 and the DPA 1998 is therefore no substitute for strong safeguards in the statutory scheme to ensure that the power to disclose confidential information about an individual, of which that individual will generally be unaware, is only exercised in circumstances where it is proportionate to do so".
	Paragraph 1.29 states:
	"Three important safeguards which are desirable in relation to regimes for the disclosure of confidential information are pre- disclosure assessment, prior authorisation and external oversight".
	Paragraph 1.31 states:
	"A general instruction that confidential information can be disclosed in the public interest is not a very satisfactory safeguard for Article 8 rights. It falls far short of being a requirement that disclosure be authorised by a senior person after considering whether, in all the particular circumstances . . . disclosure is justified".
	Finally, paragraph 1.32 states:
	"The Newton report points out that prior authorisation safeguards have traditionally been considered particularly important when an individual is unlikely to know that such powers are being exercised against him. . . . In our view the same applies in relation to the present Bill".
	The letter sent by the chairman neither addressed nor engaged with the argument. The report available today makes that plain, and has about five references relevant to this amendment.
	"Our main concern . . . is to ensure that the legal framework, as set out in the primary legislation, does not confer overbroad discretions to interfere with private life, but limits such powers to interfere by including on the face of the legislation"—
	again, on the face of the legislation—
	"criteria to help ensure that unjustified interferences do not take place . . . We are grateful for the Minister's clarification, but we remain of the view that the discretion conferred by Clause 17(1) is too broad, even when considered alongside the various safeguards contained in the statutory code of confidentiality. In our view, such powers to share information internally should contain on their face the criteria to guide decisions as to whether"—
	I am sorry, I am interrupting a conversation. I should not do that. I thank the noble Lord.
	Paragraph 1.11 states:
	"We noted that the kinds of purposes for which public interest is permitted are left by the Bill to be defined in regulations".
	The last passage is:
	"We therefore welcome the Minister's clarification . . . but remain concerned at the breadth of power in this Bill to add new categories of circumstances when disclosure can be made to the public . . . For the reasons we gave in our earlier report, we have concerns about relying on internal guidance, which by definition is inaccessible to the public, as the source of more detailed guidance as to what disclosures are proportionate in the circumstances of any particular case".
	It concludes on a rather sad note, but we all felt that it was fair enough:
	"We are disappointed that the Minister in her response has not addressed the merits of any of these suggestions or the substance of our reasoning, but merely asserts that the Bill provides the correct balance and that Article 8 rights are fully respected in a way which enables HMRC to work effectively towards its legitimate aims. We remain of the view expressed in our earlier Report and repeat our call for the Government to give serious consideration to the stronger safeguards we have suggested, none of which, in our view, would unnecessarily impede HMRC in the pursuit of [its] . . . important legitimate aims".
	I beg to move.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we support my noble friend's amendment. Taxpayer confidentiality is a crucial issue and one that we will be debating throughout our proceedings today. My noble friend has already quoted at length from the latest report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee was disappointed in the Government's response, and so were we. The issue is safeguards for the taxpayer and we do not think that that has been addressed. My noble friend's amendment is therefore very pertinent.

Lord Newby: My Lords, in principle Clause 17(1), the provision which is causing the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, so much concern, looks both innocuous and sensible. It allows the newly merged department to use information it collects in respect of one form of tax, for example, to guide how it views that taxpayer's affairs more generally. On first reading it, I welcomed the clause with no demur. However, we have since read the two reports from the Joint Committee in which concerns have been expressed that this provision is too broad.
	What we are really talking about here is the question of proportionality. I should have thought that the "administrative level safeguards" referred to in paragraph 1.8 of the committee's report might well be adequate to address the problem, as the committee suggests. But I fear that even if I were not convinced that those safeguards would do the job, I am certainly not happy with the solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his amendment. He proposes that in every single case in which information given for one purpose is used for another by the newly merged department, it would have to go to court to seek agreement.
	Over the course of a year I imagine that there are literally millions of occasions on which taxpayers' information, particularly on the business side where information is provided on VAT, NIC, PAYE and corporation tax, needs to be considered together in forming a view about a taxpayer's affairs. Under the amendment, millions of cases would arise where court orders have to be made. Given that, and notwithstanding any support we may have for the views of the Joint Committee, we fear that this amendment fails the practicality test.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I support this amendment and I think it is very important. We are promised identity cards capable of holding a lot of information about individuals. Without the safeguards provided in this amendment, I would be very concerned lest confidential taxpayer information finds its way on to any database being used to provide information to be included on identity cards. That is one of the reasons why I support the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Lord. Is he really saying that every inquiry made by the Child Support Agency about the level of income of a particular individual being chased by that agency would require the department, the CSA or the Inland Revenue, as the holder of information since it has access to an employee's tax and insurance details, to get a court order? There are hundreds of thousands of such cases every year.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I remind the House that this is the Report stage. Perhaps the noble Lord would answer that question when he replies to the debate.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall answer it. My noble friend is absolutely right. I do not know the precise numbers, but he is right to point out that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to require a court order for each and every disclosure which is made. We are not talking about a new approach, but about the present approach. This is what happens at the moment. There is a substantial exchange of information which is not done by court order. To require a court order in each case would be deeply damaging to the way that the new organisation would operate and—dare I say?—deeply damaging to the courts as well. They would find themselves swamped with minor applications for disclosure of information when it is perfectly obvious that this is the sort of thing that has been done for 30 years. In short—although I am afraid that I am about to give a detailed response—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is absolutely right. If nothing else, the amendment fails on the ground of practicality.
	I shall say a little about the sharing of information. Information is shared between the departments all the time. Moreover, there are substantial safeguards in place to ensure that confidential information about taxpayers is not misplaced. I say that particularly in the hope that it may reassure the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I refer to the statutory duty of confidentiality in Clause 18, while Clause 19 provides a criminal offence of unlawful disclosure of confidential taxpayer information. Clause 22 makes it plain that the department will be fully subject to the Data Protection Act 1998, while Clause 3 covers the declaration of confidentiality made by officers. All those provisions reinforce the obligations. In addition, there will be stringent internal safeguards to which I have referred before.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for drawing attention to the latest report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, that the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report issued today says some very reassuring things about the administrative safeguards. It notes in paragraph 1.6 that it found the Minister's response to the questions very helpful. The noble Lord said that the committee stated that the Minister had wholly failed to engage. However, the report states at paragraph 1.6:
	"We have found the Minister's response very helpful. We are reassured that there exist numerous procedural safeguards at the administrative level designed to ensure that information is only shared where both necessary and appropriate. We also accept the necessity for administrative level safeguards, giving concrete practical effect to the safeguards contained in the Bill, and that such detailed safeguards need not be spelt out on the face of the legislation itself".
	So, thus far, the committee is very supportive of what the Minister has said on the arrangements which will be in place.
	It is quite right that the committee adds at paragraph 1.7:
	"We remain concerned . . . at the breadth of the discretion to share information internally as it is currently drafted".
	However, the committee goes on to say in paragraph 1.8:
	"It may well be that the administrative level safeguards supply this omission and make it clear that information is only to be shared internally if such use satisfies a test for proportionality".
	The committee simply states:
	"We are not in a position to scrutinise such administrative level safeguards".
	Therefore, a narrow point remains in the Joint Committee's report. It is reassured that the administrative safeguards are there. It is prepared to accept that those safeguards will meet the omission that it has identified. The committee thinks that it would be better to say something further, but it does not say that that should be what the noble Lord proposes; that is, that each and every disclosure of information should be the subject of a prior judicial order. The closest that it comes to saying anything about judicial orders is contained in the quotation that the noble Lord read out concerning safeguards. However, all it says there, by reference to the Newton committee report, is that there may be some cases relating to sensitive information—I believe this comes from the Newton report—which would justify prior judicial control, but that that certainly should not apply in all cases. Even if one accepts that, it does not support the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to Clause 19 as a safeguard; that is to say, a prosecution for wrongful disclosure of information. I note in Clause 19(5)(b) that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for a prosecution for an offence under that clause. Is the purpose of that to prevent a private prosecution by an aggrieved taxpayer whose confidential information has been disclosed in a manner which he thinks breaches Clause 19?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not think for a moment that the purpose is to prevent prosecutions involving an aggrieved taxpayer. The effect of the clause is that a private prosecution cannot be brought without the consent either of the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions or of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the noble Lord is suggesting that this measure has been inserted to stop taxpayers being able to complain and have that complaint properly dealt with, with respect I resent that suggestion. I have said on previous occasions—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am not making any allegations: I am seeking information.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is a very experienced advocate who has a way of seeking information that tends to cast aspersions, but it often works. However, I am glad that on this occasion I was wrong to deduce anything of the kind from what the noble Lord said.
	I return to the fundamental point. This legislation is subject—and the department will be subject—to the full rigours both of the Data Protection Act and of the Human Rights Act. It will not be possible to make disclosures and to use confidential information unless that complies with Article 8 of the European Convention. I understand that is absolute common ground between everyone. Administrative safeguards are in place; statutory prohibitions exist to reinforce the confidentiality obligations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I take the view that this amendment, if passed, would greatly damage the work of the departments. It would put the clock back a long way. I hesitate to say that it would make us go backwards, not forwards, but it would certainly not allow us even to stay where we are.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall answer the question that was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. If the noble Lord reads paragraph (b) of my amendment carefully, he will see that what he suggested was not and is not the case. Paragraph (b) relates only to information given for one purpose which,
	"shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose".
	It acts as a bar on those very rare occasions. It is of such importance that it attracted the attention of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is strictly limited in the way I have described.
	On the general trend of the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I am afraid that we are not in an unusual position; we have to differ. This has happened on many occasions. However, the beginning of Report is not the occasion on which it is proper for me to seek to argue back line by line, point by point, and I do not propose to weary your Lordships in doing so. In view of some helpful concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and some of the points made by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I should like to have an opportunity to consider the substance of the argument against me and if necessary reform the form of the amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Power to transfer functions]:

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) After section 5(1) of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 insert—
	"(1A) No Order in Council which—
	(a) provides for the transfer to any Minister of the Crown of any functions previously exercisable by the Commissioner's for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or by the officers of Revenue and Customs, or
	(b) directs that functions of the Commissioner's for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or of the officers of Revenue and Customs shall be exercisable concurrently with another Minister of the Crown, or shall cease to be so exercisable,
	shall be made under this Act unless, after copies of the draft thereof have been laid before Parliament, each House presents an Address to Her Majesty praying that the Order be made.""

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 3 which would amend Clause 8 so that any transfer of functions from HMRC has to be approved by each House of Parliament. The effect of Clause 8 as it stands is to invoke only the negative procedure if any functions of HMRC are to be transferred.
	We debated this issue in Grand Committee and since then the noble and learned Lord has written to me with a helpful list of the current functions of both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise which would be subject to transfer under Clause 8. I thank him for that. We acknowledge, of course, that Clause 8 does not permit the core collection and management functions to be transferred under Clause 8, but that leaves, on my counting, 29 current activities as set out in the noble and learned Lord's letter, which could be transferred.
	The concern is that functions which involve confidential taxpayer information could be transferred by only the most minimal of parliamentary procedures. For example, child trust funds, which involve a means-tested element, are covered. So, too, is the enforcement of the national minimum wage.
	There are also other important functions. For example, Customs and Excise has some interesting investigation functions, including in relation to weapons of mass destruction. These, too, could be transferred at will by the Government.
	These activities have been placed under the care and control of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise by primary legislation. It has been suggested by some— notably the Public and Commercial Services Union—that the removal of the functions should similarly be done by primary legislation, but we do not go that far; we are simply asking for the affirmative procedure.
	When we debated this in Committee, I said that my amendment did not take account of Scotland and Wales, and therefore I would return on Report with an amended amendment. I discovered that in fact that is not necessary, as I am advised that the effect of subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 8 is that the affirmative procedure would be required if functions were to be transferred under either the Scotland Act or the Government of Wales Act. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will be able to explain why the affirmative procedure is good enough for Scotland and Wales but not for England.
	In Committee, the noble and learned Lord cited as a disadvantage of my amendment that parliamentary time would be taken even if the transfers were not controversial. That misses the point; we are concerned that functions might be transferred where there is controversy. It is important that Parliament should be fully involved, as set out in my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as at the earlier stage, and for the same reasons, I resist the amendment. I will summarise where we are. As I understand it, there are no concerns about the ability to transfer functions into HMRC by order in council under the Ministers of the Crown Act. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head, which I understand to mean that she agrees. I will comment therefore simply on the issue of transferring functions out, which is what I understand the amendment to be about. I emphasise, as I have done before, that there is no present intention or plan to transfer any particular function out. We are talking at the moment about the power to do so, rather than signalling any changes.
	Secondly, I want to reiterate the point that I made at the earlier stages. There is an important restriction in Clause 8, which prevents the transfer out from HMRC under Clause 8 any of the tax, duty, national insurance contributions or tax credit functions inherited by HMRC from the predecessor departments. Those are all the functions which, put broadly, are the reason why HMRC is being created as a non-ministerial department rather than as a ministerial department—in order to maintain that arm's length approach that we discussed at earlier stages. But for that, but for the desire to keep those functions at arm's length, this could be perfectly easily an ordinary ministerial department, in which case the provisions of the Ministers of the Crown Act would simply apply. In those circumstances, the procedures for machinery of government changes would apply as they do between any other departments. As it is a non-ministerial department it has been necessary to make specific provision for the Ministers of the Crown Act to apply because otherwise it simply would not do on its terms.
	All that Clause 8 does is take those other functions, not those functions that it is necessary to keep at arm's length, and to reverse the effect of making this a non-ministerial department. In other words, in relation to those other functions they should be capable, in principle, of being transferred out in just the same way and subject to just the same procedures as if they were in an ordinary ministerial department, which they could easily have been.
	I will give a couple of examples. The valuation of property for council tax purposes will be conducted by HMRC. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has policy responsibility for council tax, and local authorities administer council tax. If the tax can be administered by a local authority, and if the policy can be set by a ministerial department, could it really be that the question of who performs the valuation of that property is so sensitive that it cannot be transferred out of HMRC into another department without some special procedure?
	Statutory payments, such as maternity and sick pay, will be administered by HMRC on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions. Those departments are responsible for the payments. Could it really be right to suggest that there is something so special and sensitive about the payment of those sums that the transfer of the function of making the payment has to be subject to some special procedure over and above the procedures that we already have in place, and which have worked extremely well for machinery of government changes?
	The noble Baroness has been good enough to refer to the letter that I sent, in which I set out in an annex the functions that we could be talking about. One has functions such as the payment of student loans, the issue of bank notes, the investigation of dealing in tainted cultural objects, and the payment of rates to local authorities in lieu of rates on diplomatic premises. Those are all important, and one could perfectly easily envisage that it might be appropriate at some stage to transfer them to some other government department. Why should the procedure for transferring that sort of function to another department be any different from what it would have been had they been in an ordinary ministerial department in the first place? They easily could have been, given that it is only because of the special Revenue functions, which are exempted from the procedure altogether, that this is being created as a non-ministerial department. As a matter of principle, I do not see why it is necessary to have that special procedure.
	The noble Baroness asked me about the position in relation to Scotland and Wales. The procedure for orders involving HMRC mirrors that for all other departments. In the case of the Ministers of the Crown Act, that is a negative resolution, but both the equivalent Scottish and Welsh procedures are affirmative. That simply reflects the rather more complex issues that accompany the devolution settlement. The Bill simply brings HMRC on to the same footing as other departments in so far as concerns those non-protected functions, which is the reason why it is a non-ministerial department.
	I conclude by emphasising this point. As with all other regulation-making powers, Clause 8 was scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which reported on 21 February. Noble Lords will know, because it arises so frequently, that the views of that committee are rightly treated with great respect by this House, so much so that when that committee takes the view that the Government ought to have included some procedure over and above what they have, or if the committee has a problem with a power, that is always carefully considered by the Government and more often than not—that may be an understatement—accepted by the Government. On this occasion, having considered the question of the ring fence and the statutory model for transferring functions, the committee concluded that,
	"this adaptation (with extra limitations) of the existing powers is appropriate".
	I invite noble Lords to accept that judgment. The committee did not regard the procedure under the Bill as in any way deficient. It did not regard it as in any way lacking in parliamentary scrutiny. It was satisfied that the procedure was entirely suitable for those non-ring-fenced powers. Under those circumstances, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness not to press her amendment and not to seek to impose an unnecessary limitation, which would not have arisen if we had done this simply by leaving the powers in a ministerial department.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I understand what he is saying, but Parliament gave a non-ministerial government department the functions. That is why some degree of parliamentary scrutiny should be retained for transfers. He did not explain the difference between the procedures for Scotland and Wales compared with those for England; he simply said that they were different because they came from different Acts.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with respect, I said that there were differences because of the more complex procedures relating to the devolution settlement. I think that all noble Lords understand what I mean by that, at least very broadly.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that additional explanation, but it does not change the fundamental point that we are transferring functions and that, for the same sort of functions, under some Acts we have affirmative procedures but under some we do not. I shall think again about what he said before Third Reading, but the issue continues to trouble me. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 13 [Exercise of Commissioners' functions by officers]:

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 6, line 19, at end insert ", and
	( ) issuing instructions under section 20(1)(a)"

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. Their purpose is straightforward—to ensure that instructions about the circumstances under which confidential taxpayer information can be disclosed, as provided for in Clause 20(1), should not be delegated other than to the commissioners or a single commissioner.
	It was clear from our Grand Committee debates that Clause 14(1)(c)—delegation "to any other person"—meant precisely what it said. My noble friend Lord Kingsland suggested that the drafting left it open for delegation to be made to an office cleaner. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, although agreeing with my noble friend that such a prospect was "wholly unrealistic", did not deny that the current text would permit that. He went on to say that,
	"the delegation that is in mind will extend only to more senior staff".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. GC 377.]
	Clearly, the Government's intention is only "in mind" and is not reflected in the Bill. I do not in any way question the Attorney-General's sincerity, but surely it is not too much to ask that we have tighter and clearer provision than we have, and that the drafting of the Bill mirrors the intended practice.
	I accept that the example of the office cleaner may be a little absurd, particularly in the context of the noble and learned Lord's assurance that delegation would extend only to more senior staff. A better example might be that of a senior IT manager under contract to HMRC to install computer systems. I can readily envisage circumstances in which, perhaps for a purpose arising from a software upgrade, temptation might exist to delegate the issuing of Clause 20 instructions to such an individual. Such a delegation could compromise the integrity and confidentiality of taxpayer information. In other words, a principal aim of the amendments is to close off a potential loophole through which information could inadvertently leak. Given his comments in Grand Committee, I hope that that might offer some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
	I recognise that the noble and learned Lord may resist the amendments on the grounds that they will, in effect, tighten the disclosure regime as compared with existing practice. I acknowledge that the Government have been wholly consistent in arguing that the Bill is all about effecting the integration of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise with no change to their legacy powers. Both in person and when I have been so admirably represented by my noble friend Lord Kingsland, I have been equally consistent in my conviction that the confidentiality of taxpayer information lies at the heart of the integrity of the tax system.
	Although the Government are content that the power to delegate should be granted to more senior staff, I favour confining it to the commissioner level. There is not too much wrong in making the disclosure regime a little more robust, nor in weighting it a little more in favour of the taxpayer rather than the Revenue authorities. In returning to the matter, I should briefly add that I have attempted to pick up the entirely valid observations of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in Grand Committee. He rightly referred to forms of practice within the Revenue authorities whereby delegations were often made to a single commissioner. I hope that he is content that I have adequately drafted the amendments to reflect that. I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I support the amendments and the arguments that the noble Earl set out. I am grateful to him for amending his amendment to take account of concerns that I expressed at an earlier stage. The problem with which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General attempted to grapple in Committee was the "office cleaner conundrum", and assurances might be given that public interest disclosure would not be delegated to too junior a level or to people who were not officers of the merged department at all.
	I heard what the noble and learned Lord said at that point, but the principle of making public interest disclosure a pretty stiff test is a good one. With one caveat, it seems entirely sensible to require individual commissioners to sign off such disclosure. My only caveat is that, if in any week there were 20,000 pieces of disclosure—or even 1,000—it would clearly be impracticable. One would then be looking for some assurance from the Minister on the level to which staff delegation might apply. However, if one is talking about a few tens of decisions a week, it seems perfectly practicable and reasonable to expect an individual commissioner to look at those and sign them off. Subject to that, my inclination is to support the amendment.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we support my noble friend's amendments. The power to delegate in Clauses 12 to 14 is very broad, and the exclusions from that power set out in Clauses 13(3) and 14(2) are very narrow. Many things could be brought within the need to confine action to the commissioners, but the amendment is relatively modest, limiting itself to the disclosure of information on public interest grounds under Clause 20(1)(a).
	Taxpayer confidentiality is crucial. The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway have already highlighted the importance of that. The issues should not be subsumed within administrative arrangements and confined to being executed by officers or involving committees or other delegations. They should be retained by the commissioners themselves. I fully accept the proviso of the noble Lord, Lord Newby—that if a massive number arose under Clause 20, practicality might well require a slightly different amendment. Subject to that, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General feels able to support the amendment.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness; I do not. What the noble Earl proposes is not to prevent a delegation to the office cleaner; Amendment No. 4 would prevent something being delegated below two commissioners, and Amendment No. 5 refers to one commissioner. Each case would still have to be considered by at least one commissioner under even the more generous of the amendments—Amendment No. 5—or by two commissioners if only Amendment No. 4 had effect. As he says, that would go back from the present position.
	I want to remind noble Lords what the purpose of the public interest disclosure regulations will be; we will debate them under a later amendment tabled by the noble Earl. As I indicated in Grand Committee, we were anxious to deal with the part of the human rights obligations that requires, in this particular case, that something that engages Article 8 is,
	"in accordance with the law".
	That phrase is met well by setting out detailed regulations which identify the legitimate purposes, unlike, as is the present position, disclosures which are made in the public interest under implied powers rather than under express statutory powers. This is a new provision to meet the desirability of being clear about what disclosures there can be, which will overtake the current implied statutory power.
	I remind noble Lords that we have already exposed the public interest regulations that we have in mind in the draft. Indeed, the noble Earl has taken that as his text for a later amendment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about the degree and number of cases there might be. The disclosure with which we are concerned here—I shall be corrected from the Box if I am wrong—is not limited to disclosure of confidential taxpayer information. This goes back to the ability to use information in connection with any other function if it meets certain categories. One of those is Clause 20.
	Let me give an example of when disclosure may be required. I also have some statistics. Disclosure in the public interest may need to be made at very short notice, when there is an imminent or urgent danger to the public. I have been given the example of an excise officer visiting a fuel depot for the purpose of conducting an assurance visit who comes across unsafe filling practices. He will want to pass on that information without delay to the appropriate authority, such as the local council or trading standards office.
	Under the Bill's proposals he can take the information to a more senior officer who will authorise disclosure to the relevant authority, rather than having to find a commissioner or, under Amendment No. 4, two commissioners. Under the proposed amendment, unless the commissioners had given a blanket authorisation, having foreseen all the circumstances—I apprehend that the more general the authorisation, the more unhappy noble Lords would be—there would be a delay with potentially serious consequences.
	Another example refers to disclosures that aid joint working between law enforcement agencies. It is common for a joint intelligence cell to be based at airports. They share information, for example, about a target flight or a target passenger, who may be arriving at a particular time or who meets a certain profile. Customs staff, immigration staff and the police may be involved. In a relatively short period there could be several instances of sharing information.
	It would be difficult for the commissioners to predict all the circumstances that might arise. As such, that type of disclosure works best when a responsible individual in the team has the authority to issue instructions to make the disclosures, rather than escalating each and every one.
	How many of those might there be? Work has been done for me for which I am grateful. In February this year at the Dover joint intelligence cell, there were 99 disclosures, suggesting a volume of a little over 1,000 disclosures. Dover is one of the busier joint intelligence cells. At the new Heathrow joint intelligence cell, there were 30 disclosures in January 2005, and the monthly volume is expected to increase. There are 21 joint intelligence cells operating nationwide. If one extrapolates from, say, 50 disclosures a month, that suggests, from just this source, 10,000 disclosures annually nationwide—a large proportion of which would require individual authorisation because it is not possible to predict the circumstances in which disclosure will arise.
	Assuming that considering those would require at least a few minutes of a commissioner's time, that suggests about 1,500 commissioner hours each year just for this purpose. Even if we accepted Amendment No. 5 so that only one commissioner was required, that would equate to one of the department's six commissioners doing nothing all year but authorising this sort of public interest disclosure.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, that is extremely interesting, but will the Minister explain why that cannot be covered by general instructions? In setting up a joint intelligence cell, it seems to me that there would be an element of commonality of disclosures. Therefore, we would be talking about one form of authoritisation, not thousands.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as I indicated, the difficulty is whether one can foresee all the circumstances in which disclosures need to be made. If I were to say that there should be disclosure in any case where there is a joint intelligence cell, noble Lords would view that sort of blanket authorisation as too broad and insufficiently precise.
	I am citing only one example. The proposition in support of the amendment, as suggested by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, is that there cannot be that many disclosures in operation. I am told by those who know the position that a large number of disclosures are made. We are not talking about disclosure down to the level of the tea lady. It does not help a responsible department to argue for something that is even more restrictive than the present position, to take the tea lady example.
	I made it perfectly clear in Committee that there is no question—it would be astonishing if anyone thought there were—of delegating to the tea lady decisions about disclosure of information on public interest grounds. We are talking about a serious, responsible, public department, which understands its obligations. It must give proper and due consideration to the disclosure of information because that is what the statute requires.
	I can say on the record that class instructions on public interest disclosure will not be delegated below senior Civil Service level. I emphasise the term "class instructions" because there could be individual cases that go below senior Civil Service level—some of my examples indicate why it may be necessary to deal with matters urgently.

Lord Barnett: My Lords—

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall finish the point if I may. It would be the senior expert on that matter who would make the instruction.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am curious to know what the level of a senior civil servant will be in these cases. Is it deputy secretary, permanent secretary, or what?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I never know the answer to that question. The answer has arrived. It is grade 5 assistant secretary.
	I cannot accept an amendment that would tie us to allowing only commissioners to make disclosures. I ask noble Lords to accept that I shall not be putting forward an approach that is based on irresponsibility or a desire to allow disclosures to be made on an inadequate basis and with inadequate seniority of consideration.

Lord Newby: My Lords, earlier the noble and learned Lord raised the issue of an officer who, in the course of his duty, came across a possible health and safety problem. Under the draft statutory instrument, one area covered in terms of disclosure relates to disclosure to a body exercising public functions in relation to the protection of public health and safety. Can the Minister help me with regard to the situation that applies?
	The officer from Customs and Excise is examining a fuel storage depot to ensure that those responsible are paying the duty. He is worried that there is a leakage and that there may be a public safety problem. The statutory instrument has been passed, enabling disclosure to be made to a body exercising public functions in relation to the protection of public health and safety. Is it the case that, having come across a circumstance covered by one of the disclosure provisions, under the current rules the officer would still have to refer it upwards to a senior officer before he could ring up the Health and Safety Executive and say, "Look, I've found a leak. I really do think you ought to come and have a look at it"?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me what the position is under the current rules. I cannot answer that at present, although perhaps in a moment I shall be able to do so. But I want to say to him that, again as I understand it, Clause 20 makes clear that there are two requirements for a disclosure to be made. The disclosure has to be for a purpose of a kind specified in regulations—the noble Lord referred to one of the purposes specified in the draft regulations—but it also has to be made on the commissioners' instructions, which can be either specific or general.
	We have had a debate about "general". If the instruction was specific, it would be specific authorisation of that information on that occasion. "General" obviously allows a degree of class instruction to be given, but, so it seems to me from reading the Bill, it cannot just be a question of the instruction being of a type specified within the regulations.
	The answer to the question is: yes. In the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the officer would have to refer the matter upwards unless it was already covered by a class instruction. It is not enough that it is just in the regulations because they specify the purpose. One has to look at the instruction.
	I was about to say in summary, first, that the instructions will always be given by a senior and competent person who has the appropriate training—that I can clearly say. Secondly, they will be within the criteria set out clearly either in the Bill or in the regulations. Thirdly, I can also tell noble Lords that commissioners will monitor the instructions by ensuring that there are proper records and audit trails.
	I invite noble Lords to accept that those assurances are adequate to meet the concerns, which I understand, and so that this responsible department can do its job in an effective and satisfactory way for the benefit of all the people of this country. Therefore, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, except that in many respects he has added to my confusion rather than offered me any reassurance. As I read the Bill, there is a clear distinction between the grant of any individual authority for a disclosure and the issuance of instructions.
	I heard what the noble and learned Lord said about the number of individual authorities for disclosure that may currently exist within the Revenue authorities and HM Customs and Excise. I also heard what he said about class instructions. If my reading of the Bill is correct, it seems to me that those are within the terms of the qualification over which my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said they wanted satisfaction.
	In addition, in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to as the "office cleaner conundrum", I deliberately offered the noble and learned Lord another example—that of a senior IT manager—which he singularly failed to address. My concern remains that, as the Bill stands, delegation of these instructions under the terms of Clause 20 could be made to any other person. That is the text of the Bill, and I think that that drafting is far too loose. In those circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 136.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 14 [Delegation]:

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 6, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) The Commissioners or a number of Commissioners may delegate their function of giving instructions under section 20(1)(a) to a single Commissioner by virtue of subsection (1)(a), but may not delegate that function by virtue of subsection (1)(b) or (c)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
	Clause 20 [Public interest disclosure]:

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 10, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) The Commissioners may instruct disclosure if they are satisfied that it is made in the public interest and falls within one of the following descriptions, namely disclosure—
	(a) to public bodies in order to honour international and other agreements to which they and the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Government are party, in relation to the movement of persons, goods and means of transport into and out of the United Kingdom, where the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime, fraud or evasion,
	(b) to a body responsible for the regulation of any profession, for the purposes of reporting misconduct on the part of its members, where a member of a profession has provided services to a client of his which affect the client's proper compliance in relation to any matter which is subject to the exercise of any function of the Commissioners or officers of Revenue and Customs within the meaning of section 51(2),
	(c) to a constable where the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of facilitating cooperation between, or the exercise of respective functions by, that person and the Commissioners, in relation to the movement of persons, goods and means of transport into and out of the United Kingdom,
	(d) to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, for the purpose of enabling it to exercise its criminal intelligence functions under section 2(2) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) (general functions of the NCIS services authority and NCIS), in relation to the Commissioners as a law enforcement agency within the meaning of section 2(3)(a) of that Act,
	(e) to a body exercising public functions in relation to the protection of public health and safety,
	(f) to the Police Information Technology Organisation for the purpose of recording on the Police National Computer information about suspects, arrests and the disposition of criminal investigations and seizures, and to users with the right of access to that computer
	(1A) Where a disclosure has been made by virtue of subsection (1), further disclosure shall not be made without the written consent of the Commissioners or a person authorised by them.
	(1B) Disclosure is also in accordance with this section (as mentioned in section 18(2)(b)) if made—
	(a) on the instructions of the Commissioners (which may be general or specific), and
	(b) for a purpose of a kind specified in regulations made by the Treasury, and such regulations may vary the provisions of subsection (1)."

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, by leave of the House I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. They all relate to the order-making powers provided for in Clause 20 and devolve into two sub-groupings, the second flowing logically from the first.
	The first sub-group comprises Amendments Nos. 9 and 11. Here, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for making available the draft regulations. As is self-evident from Amendment No. 9, I have sought to transpose their terms into the Bill. The other amendment in this sub-grouping—Amendment No. 11—would delete subsections (7), (8) and (9).
	I find myself in an unusual, even pleasurable, position. I can pray in aid the support of none other than the noble and learned Lord for the proposition embodied in the amendments. He will remember the debate on Amendment No. 31 in Grand Committee, moved on my behalf by my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Some of the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General at that time have a special relevance here.
	First, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will recall saying:
	"Let me be clear that HM Revenue and Customs will always use statutory gateways for disclosure where it is possible".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. GC 374.]
	That is precisely what would be achieved by making the amendment, which guarantees that HMRC can use the statutory gateway of the Bill that the noble and learned Lord maintains is the Government's preference.
	The noble and learned Lord was also keen to emphasise the narrowness with which the respective areas of public interest disclosure in the draft regulations had been defined. I do not dissent from that view, but there are also provisions of substance. For example, it is not uncommon to embody the text of paragraph (a) of the amendment, dealing with international treaty obligations, in primary statute.
	Moreover, I accept that, as the noble and learned Lord put it in Grand Committee,
	"they are all proper, laudable, public-interest reasons why disclosure should be permissible".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. GC 375.]
	As such, I can see no objection to putting them in the Bill, a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its sixth progress report, addressing the Government's response to its original concerns, the Committee stated:
	"We remain of the view that the broad categories of disclosure in the public interest, and the descriptions of the types of persons to whom such disclosure is to be permitted, should be contained on the face of the Bill itself, for the reasons of legal certainty which we have previously explained".
	As the JCHR made plain, that has the desirable effect of enhancing the transparency, clarity and foreseeability of the disclosure regime, an outcome that I would have anticipated that the Government would welcome.
	In Grand Committee the noble and learned Lord also said:
	"The draft regulations demonstrate, as I understand it, the things currently envisaged for the regulation".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. GC 375.]
	We can therefore infer that neither the Inland Revenue nor the Customs and Excise is at this time contemplating any other public interest types of disclosure as potential candidates for the Clause 20 order-making power. That being so, the requirement for the transitional procedure encapsulated in subsections (7), (8) and (9) becomes otiose.
	I turn to the second sub-grouping, which contains Amendments Nos. 10 and 12. Taken together, these provide for a super-affirmative, rather than an affirmative, procedure for any subsequent regulations. To save the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General articulating it in response, I acknowledge that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has indicated that it considers the affirmative procedure to be appropriate in this instance. I acknowledge too that the use of the super-affirmative procedure could create tension between a potential requirement for HMRC to respond urgently to emerging circumstances and the length of time that the proposed form of scrutiny might take.
	However, I am not persuaded that this is an especially powerful argument. As my noble friend Lord Kingsland observed in Committee:
	"Public interest as a basis for disclosure would . . . be relatively rare".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. GC 379.]
	Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was content to confirm that. He said:
	"I want to place on the record that the power to regulate for that type of disclosure will be used only sparingly to create new regulations".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. GC 374.]
	To that extent, and taking into account what would be achieved by Amendment No. 9, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the need for future regulation in this area, in so far as it may be required at all, will be decidedly infrequent.
	Quite apart from that, the engagement of the disclosure regime with Article 8 of the ECHR taken with the importance of taxpayer confidentiality in maintaining the integrity of the tax system imply that parliamentary scrutiny of any future regulations needs to be as robust and meaningful as possible.
	I realise that, so far as the affirmative procedure is concerned, an appropriate declaration as to the compatibility of the relevant regulations with the Human Rights Act has to be made. But, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway knows only too well, such statements of conformity are not always universally accepted. I also recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is satisfied that the courts offer adequate recourse against any inadvertent incompatibilities with the Human Rights Act that may arise. But, inevitably, that would occur after the event. The damage to the individual taxpayers involved and, conceivably, to the integrity of the tax system, would already have been done.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, has put his finger firmly on the pulse of what matters. As he rightly identifies, the key component of the new clause is the power to amend any regulations that may be presented in the future. Logically, this should have the desirable effect of minimising the likelihood of any future public interest disclosure regulations that offend against the Human Rights Act passing into law. All in all, resort to the super-affirmative procedure in this instance has a great deal going for it. I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with two linked matters. Amendment No. 9 relates to placing on the face of the Bill the initial descriptions of disclosure that would be covered. In doing so, the noble Earl is following the recommendation in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published today.
	As an aside, there are a number of other proposals and recommendations in the Joint Committee report, which we have seen in the past hour or two, that we want to look at and, possibly, respond to at Third Reading. With the imminence of an election, we may be denied the opportunity, which is unfortunate. We have not had a chance to reflect all the views of the Joint Committee in the amendments before us today.
	However, this amendment does reflect the Joint Committee's views and is completely costless. It is difficult to see how the Government could possibly object to it. They are going to legislate, by statutory instrument, to do what this amendment does. The Joint Committee said that it would be better for transparency, and for other reasons, if the provision were on the face of the Bill. All that is required is to take it from secondary legislation and put it on the face of the Bill. It has no substantial effect whatever but it helps the quality of the legislation.
	As for the super-affirmative resolution procedure, the Minister and I disagreed in Committee about the extent to which it was two bites at the cherry. But the key aspect is whether Parliament has the power to amend an order. There are orders that Parliament should be debating properly and, possibly, amending. There are other orders that Parliament should take through the affirmative route, but that are not of such nature that they warrant the super-affirmative approach.
	We had a classic example of this last week when on the same evening we debated the repeal of the Trading Stamps Act—which noble Lords would agree was desirable and therefore did not justify the super-affirmative approach—and the approval of the Operating and Financial Review Regulations, which were a major change to company law and which every body in the country with an interest, but Parliament, has had a chance to amend during the past year.
	There is a class of statutory instruments that are of such a nature that Parliament should have the opportunity to amend them or, in rare cases, to recommend that they are not proceeded with, without using the nuclear weapon that we currently have when statutory instruments come before your Lordships' House. The question is whether, if one accepts this approach—I am not sure that the Minister does as a matter of principle—this area is one for which the super-affirmative approach is necessary.
	On balance, I think that the issues are important enough for Parliament to have the chance to look at them properly and, if it is worried about them, to make recommendations about how they might be modified. It is an "on balance" view, but I fall on the side of adopting the approach set out in this amendment; that of using the super-affirmative approach in these cases. Therefore, we will be supporting this amendment.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we support my noble friend's amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the late receipt, for the purposes of this debate, of the latest report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is interesting that, in the space of six weeks from the earlier report on the Bill, we have moved from its sixth report of this Session to its 13th report of this Session. The nature of the legislation that the Government are trying to ram through Parliament at the moment is raising so many fundamental issues relating to human rights that we must be very grateful for the work that the Joint Committee is doing on behalf of Parliament in bringing these items to our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right that the report raises further issues that may need further amendments to the Bill. I shall say no more than that I fully support my noble friend.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by noting with considerable pleasure that the Official Opposition take the view that the Human Rights Act is something that should be enforced in all ways and at all times.
	In dealing with these amendments, I want to emphasise a point that is escaping attention in some of our debates. The provisions in Clause 20 are not concerned with taxpayer information only. Clause 20 is necessary because of the prohibition imposed by Clause 18(1) that:
	"Revenue and Customs officials may not disclose information which is held by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Revenue and Customs".
	That is subject to exceptions. One of them, in Clause 18(2)(b), is that it is,
	"made in accordance with Section 20 or 21".
	I respectfully think that it would help, when considering what additional safeguards noble Lords are insisting on, to recognise that we are not just concerned with taxpayer confidentiality, which is subject to strict safeguards under the Bill. As I was trying to make clear during the debate on the previous amendment, we are also concerned with, for example, information discovered in the course of a law enforcement operation. Noble Lords have taken a view about who should have to give the authority in relation to that. The House has spoken. However, with regard to the present provisions, and the amendments that the noble Earl puts forward, I invite noble Lords to bear that point in mind.
	I need to deal with several points. The first is that which is raised by Amendment No. 9: to put on to the face of the Bill those provisions which are in the draft regulations. I start with the proposition that there is no difference between us: that those are all appropriate circumstances in which the public interest disclosure should be permissible. There is no point of principle: that we are proposing under the draft regulations a disclosure which goes beyond that which noble Lords think is appropriate. It is a matter of principle; they accept that. That is what I understand lies behind the amendment.
	Indeed, I understand that the amendment goes further. The amendment also accepts that it should be possible to add to that list not by primary legislation but by regulation. That is the effect of the noble Earl's amendment. There is no difference of principle between us about that either. In those circumstances, what is the justification for making this change to the Bill, putting something into it that we shall do in any event by regulation? The noble Earl says—and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Newby, supports him—that there is no disadvantage. There are disadvantages. With respect, I do not think that the noble Earl has seen what they are.
	First, by hard-wiring, if I may use that expression, into the Act itself those matters which were going to be in the regulation, the noble Earl is insisting on giving the Government a Henry VIII power for which they have not asked. He proposes that it should be possible to amend the primary legislation which sets out those public interest disclosures. The noble Earl shakes his head. But what then is the effect of subsection (1B)(b)? It states:
	"Disclosure is also in accordance with this section . . . if made—
	"(b) for a purpose of a kind specified in regulations made by the Treasury"—
	so he concedes that there should be a power to make regulations—
	"and such regulations may vary the provisions of subsection (1)".
	He is proposing that the Government should have the power to amend primary legislation by regulation. We have not asked for this power. It is somewhat ironic that the noble Earl, whose reason for putting forward the amendment is to increase parliamentary scrutiny, proposes one of the powers which always causes difficulties in this House, and rightly so: the power by regulation to change primary legislation. That is the first disadvantage.
	Secondly, I draw attention again to what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said on this clause. I note that it was clear that it did not consider the power to be inappropriately wide. It states that the affirmative procedure will provide an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for any proposals to add to circumstances in which disclosures may be made. Its views might have differed had this included the Henry VIII power that the noble Earl would now insist we took.
	Thirdly, we have placed a great deal of emphasis on the safeguards surrounding public interest disclosures, including criminal sanctions. But the noble Earl's amendment has managed to drop the criminal sanctions in relation to this set of disclosure provisions. The criminal sanction for unauthorised disclosure which exists in Clause 20(5) of the Bill is activated only by the making of regulations under Clause 20(4) and would not apply, therefore, to those things which are covered by what he now wishes to do.
	Finally, grateful as I am to see the enthusiasm of noble Lords for the Human Rights Act, I draw the noble Earl's attention to this fact. By putting these categories into primary legislation he prevents the courts taking a view, if they did in the future—we do not think for a moment that they will, but it is a question of power—because if they are in regulations the courts are able to strike them down as going too far. If they are in primary legislation, they are not able to do so. Far from enhancing the human rights protection, he has succeeded in taking part of it away. That relates to the first of the amendments.
	The effect of Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 is to return to the question of parliamentary procedure. With respect, I am disappointed to see that that issue has been returned to. Again, the regulation-making power has been examined by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which was satisfied of it. The committee said:
	"We do not consider the power to be inappropriately wide and we believe that the affirmative procedure provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for proposals to add to circumstances in which disclosure may be made".
	When the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has reached that view, I respectfully suggest that your Lordships should be slow to insist upon something which it has not proposed. It is the expert in this field and that is the conclusion that it has reached.
	Why is it right? It is right because there are strong safeguards in the act for taxpayer confidentiality. By imposing the affirmative procedure, Clause 20 makes sure that regulations which are passed should be subject to that degree of scrutiny. What more does the noble Earl want? He has picked up the reference in an entirely different Bill—the Identity Cards Bill—for a super-affirmative procedure. I remind noble Lords that the enhanced arrangements in the Identity Cards Bill apply to regulations that may be introduced to make registration for identity card purposes compulsory. In such a case, where practice subsequently develops beyond that applying when the primary legislation is introduced, it is quite right and proper that Parliament should have the chance for a more detailed study of the plans. But that is quite different in the case of the regulations. The policy behind these is absolutely clear and we all agree with it. The policy is that where there is a need for public interest disclosure that should be permitted so long as one defines with reasonable specificity what that public interest disclosure should be.
	The regulations made under Clause 20 cannot change that fundamental policy. It is an entirely different position from that in relation to the Identity Cards Bill. The position is inadequate and dangerous. First, it would require Parliament to consider new grounds twice. So if someone takes the view that there is a further real need for a public interest disclosure, Parliament is required to consider that twice. It is a relatively narrow thing that would be added and yet we have to consider it twice. I suggest that that is not a good use of parliamentary time. More than that, it would prevent HMRC reacting rapidly to emerging situations requiring a disclosure in the public interest.
	The noble Earl says to me, "But the Attorney-General said it would happen only sparingly". Yes, we do think that it will happen only sparingly but it may still happen in circumstances which need a quick reaction. I am afraid that events over recent years have all too plainly demonstrated that. It is no answer to say that although this may happen only sparingly we require a super-affirmative resolution; we require it to come twice to the House before we can make a sensible disclosure in the public interest—which is all that this clause can deal with. That could prevent any new regulations coming into force for 60 days and that could be a dramatic inhibition on doing something which is necessary to help or protect people in the public interest. It is only about the public interest. That is what this is all directed towards. So we would have the effectiveness of HMRC limited.
	Thirdly, and I know where the noble Lord, Newby, is coming from, the real point he makes is not so much that it happens twice but that it provides an opportunity for amendment. Amendment of what? If HMRC puts forward that there should be a further public interest disclosure category, what is the amendment going to be? It is not like the Identity Cards Bill where there will be much debate about the policy of making them compulsory.
	This is not the approach the House takes to resolutions which come before it. I recognise the argument that there is a case for saying that in future the power of this House to amend resolutions should be greater than it is at the moment. But that is not where we are. I really suggest to noble Lords that this is neither the Bill in which to make a change nor the place to debate the general policy.
	So, what is this matter ultimately about? It is about the ability of Revenue and Customs to make a disclosure in accordance with regulations where the Treasury is satisfied that it is in the public interest. We know the kind of thing that that is concerned with—preventing crime and disorder, on public health and preventing disasters, that sort of thing. I invite the noble Earl to recognise that to delay the ability to pass regulations is really not appropriate for this Bill.
	I know that the noble Earl is concerned about taxpayer confidentiality. I have been from the beginning of the passage of the Bill, as I am sure the noble Earl will recognise. The Bill contains some very strong safeguards. We have statutory prohibitions, criminal sanctions, prohibitions, and a requirement that you cannot just say, as you can at the moment, "It is in the public interest, therefore let it be disclosed". We want to have those specified. But to insist on going further in these circumstances is going too far. That is not because I disagree with the importance of confidentiality. I do not, although I remind noble Lords that this issue is much wider than taxpayer confidentiality. It is because the provision puts an unnecessary inhibition on the operation of the department by insisting that it takes place in this way. So I resist both sets of amendments.
	The noble Earl says that the Amendment No. 11 to leave out the provisions in subsections (7) to (9) would not be necessary if his other amendment were accepted. He is right to say that I am not aware of any specific regulations that would need to be brought in, if his amendment were accepted. But I need to have further thought on that.
	As the noble Earl knows, subsections (7) to (9) are absolutely essential in preventing the work of the department coming to a halt the moment the Act is passed. We are in entirely different territory from some of the debates that have taken place in this House. This is a Bill which already sets out very strong safeguards for the things about which noble Lords are concerned. It limits certain disclosures to those in the public interest; and it requires new categories to be added only if there is an affirmative resolution of the House. Surely that is enough. I urge the noble Earl not to press his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, again, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply and for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lady Noakes.
	I shall offer immediately one small crumb of comfort to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. There is no greater admirer of his advocacy than myself and his skill has been successful in that particular endeavour. I am no draftsman but I can accept the argument he advances that in Amendment No. 9 certain infelicities exist in the drafting, not least the potential for a Henry VIII provision. So, I am quite happy to withdraw that amendment.
	Nevertheless, I should advise the noble and learned Lord that my concerns about the issue remain. Justifications remain for having the text of the draft regulations in the Bill. So I merely withdraw the amendment on the basis that I shall have to reflect on how to deal with the flaws perceived by the noble and learned Lord and myself.
	On his arguments in respect of the super affirmative provisions, I said in my introduction that I thought it was possible to overplay those.
	I fully understand and appreciate the point that the noble and learned Lord makes about delay. However, my noble friend Lady Wilcox on the Front Bench has had recent experience of a specific order, albeit a negative one. It was laid on one day and two days later it came into force. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the usual channels, because it happens frequently in the House, to negotiate their way past the 60-day rule within the amendment. After all, the 40-day rule, which exists as a result of the Statutory Instruments Act, is frequently breached. So I do not think that that argument, per se—

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for letting me intervene. He proposes to put in primary legislation that you cannot make provisions unless the previous stage happened 60 days—or whatever it is—before. I do not see how the usual channels could overcome that. If it is 60 days in the statute, it is 60 days.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said in earlier proceedings on the Bill, I fear we will just have to beg to differ. For me there is an important principle here. These issues are far too important for the rather tenuous scrutiny that even affirmative procedure affords. So when we reach those amendments I shall divide on them. In respect of Amendment No. 9, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 10, line 28, leave out subsection (6).

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 126.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 12:
	After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
	"PROCEDURE FOR ORDERS UNDER SECTION 20
	(1) The Commissioners must not make regulations under section 20(1)(b) unless—
	(a) a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House, and
	(b) each of the resolutions for approving the draft was agreed more than 60 days after the day on which the draft was laid before the House in question.
	(2) No draft regulations under subsection (1)(b) are to be laid before Parliament unless—
	(a) the Commissioners have prepared and published a report containing proposals for the making of such provisions,
	(b) the report sets out the Commissioners' reasons for making the proposals,
	(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposals contained in the report, either with or without modifications, and
	(d) they give effect to the proposals so far as approved by both Houses.
	(3) An approval given in either House satisfies the requirements of subsection (2)(c) only if it was given in that House on the first occasion on which a motion for the approval of the proposal was made in that House by a Minister of the Crown after—
	(a) the laying of the report, or
	(b) if more than one report containing those proposals has been laid before that House, the laying of the most recent one.
	(4) The Commissioners must not make an order which contains any provisions that they are authorised to make under subsection (1)(b) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
	(5) In determining a period of 60 days for the purposes of subsection (1), no account shall be taken of a day for which—
	(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or
	(b) the House in question is adjourned for more than four days."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
	Clause 26 [Rewards]:

Lord Barnett: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) Substantial rewards may be paid in confidence to practising accountants and legal advisers."

Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I should declare a past interest. Somebody suggested to me that I was moving the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sheldon only to reward my old friends. This is, of course, totally untrue. I would not dream of such a thing—not through the public purse, anyway.
	The amendment relates to the current rewards apparently paid by both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. The figures previously given to us indicated that Customs and Excise rewards were in excess of £900,000, whereas the Inland Revenue gave rewards of only about £100. There is therefore some discrepancy. I am not seeking to help noble friends in the accountancy profession, or even in the legal profession where I still have friends—perhaps even including my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. My friends in the legal profession whom I have used have never been quite as distinguished as my noble and learned friend, but I would not dream of suggesting that they should get rewards for their own sake.
	I seek to ensure that those with direct knowledge of legitimate tax avoidance and, in particular, illegitimate tax evasion should be more helpful in ensuring that the public purse is less burdened. In my experience, most accountants and lawyers have nothing to do with tax evasion, as I am sure is still the case, but they will have knowledge on the border. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will have no knowledge of tax evasion, at least not in her direct experience, I hope and believe.
	Legitimate avoidance is often not disclosed. I have in mind the recruitment of retired professional people with direct knowledge of major tax avoidance schemes, about which it takes the Inland Revenue a long time to learn. It might get to know about them earlier with the help of rewards in the appropriate direction. Nobody could have rewarded me in those circumstances to provide that information, but I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would be only too happy to oblige, now that she has retired from the senior professional position that she held.
	It often takes the Inland Revenue a long time to learn about major schemes in general of tax avoidance. So somebody with direct experience in those fields could be very helpful. They may find a few pounds even more helpful once they have retired. I am not referring to the noble Baroness because I know that she will have had both a huge salary and a huge pension in her retirement—or semi-retirement now—but others might find it useful.
	I do not seek to use public money to help the professions. In net terms it would be a great help to the public purse if disclosure were made at an early stage to the Inland Revenue in particular. Given that I have been so helpful to my noble and learned friend during these debates and in the past, I hope that he will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thought that the proposed provision was very attractive and that perhaps on this occasion I might renew my practising certificate. But it is entirely different from how the noble Lord describes it. It refers to practising accountants, not retired ones. I find it surprising that we want to give "substantial rewards" to practising accountants and legal advisers, even though they may be hard up.
	In my time in practice, there were some clients on the wrong side, and the Inland Revenue often pointed the finger at them. One then had to have meetings with them and say, "This is what you have told me. I am afraid that I have to tell that to the Inland Revenue"; or, "I can no longer act for you". If you said that you could no longer act for a client, he then found another accountant, who would write to ask whether there was any professional reason why he could not act for that person. I would then respond, "Yes, there is. These are the circumstances". The client would therefore get stranded. I would therefore be very surprised if substantial rewards were needed.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, when I first saw the amendment I thought that it contained the "Barnett-Noakes benefit clause". I had read it too quickly and thought that it referred only to accountants—the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and I are both qualified accountants. But it refers to practising accountants—neither of us is that at present—therefore we do not benefit from it.
	The noble Lord referred to the need to induce accountants to report tax evasion. I do not think that any accountant bound by proper ethical rules needs such an inducement. Furthermore, I believe that the Chancellor has done quite a lot to ensure disclosure of things amounting not even to tax evasion but to tax-avoidance schemes. I wonder whether the purpose that the noble Lord had in mind for substantial rewards exists. It was a nice try but I do not think that it benefits us quite enough.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, my noble friend made the very important point that we are bringing together two completely disparate bodies with enormous powers, which deal with large sums of money, so we must have a way of finding out the errors that may occur as a result. There will be new arrangements and requirements, so we want somebody with direct experience. The eventual outcome of merging the Inland Revenue with Customs and Excise will be good in the long run. But it will be quite a number of years before it settles down and we can be assured that the standards that we have enjoyed for so many years can be maintained.
	Speed here will be dangerous. It is very hard to overstate the dangers with the different traditions, so we need some new safeguards. They need to be fairly unusual, and they may not be entirely welcome, but we need people who know what is going on. There must be provision for assisting those with that knowledge to come forward. We need some help to deal with the uncertainty that will arise. My noble friend's amendment is very suitable and apt.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly for the legal profession. This amendment is entirely anathema to the ethical position of the lawyer, who is bound by legal professional privilege up until the point where it is disclosed to him that his client has committed a criminal offence. For him to receive money to disclose matters to the Revenue or to Customs and Excise in those circumstances, or even to another lawyer to whom the case has been passed, would be contrary to the code of practice. I would resist the amendment.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in one sense this is the most animated debate that we have had so far today. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has managed to return to the aspect of the Bill that has caused him a great deal of interest, perhaps the most, since we started the debate. Now we have the punch-line of the interest.
	I can be very brief. I agree absolutely with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Sheldon on the importance of professionals acting in such a way that illegality and tax evasion are brought to the attention of the authorities. My understanding of the profession's own ethical standards demonstrates that there is an understanding of the need for that disclosure. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales states that:
	"A member should behave with integrity in all professional and business relationships".
	It goes on to say:
	"In certain circumstances information which would otherwise be confidential, will cease to be so if the information is such that disclosure is justified in the 'public interest', for example, where the employer has committed or proposes to commit a crime, fraud or misdeed".
	I trust that lawyers and tax professionals, practising and retired, will always act with the highest regard for the public interest. Whether they need the inducement of rewards to do so is an entirely different matter. As it happens, the Bill would permit such payments to be made. The merit of my not agreeing to the amendment is that that would not limit the possibility of rewards to those who are still practising. With the assurance that I would not want to discourage the commissioners from paying rewards where they thought it appropriate, even to practising or non-practising tax or legal advisers, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I make it quite clear that when I talked about "retired" professional people like the noble Lord, I meant people who have only recently retired, not someone who has retired as long ago as the noble Lord. I appreciate the strength of the debate we have had.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I have never thought of myself as retired at all. It has not ever come into my thinking. I did, however, lay down my practising certificate.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord was saying.
	The Opposition, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, seem to want to vote. I do not wish to deprive them of that opportunity. However, on this occasion, I will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 15, I should point out that in subsection (3)(a) of the amendment, the word "merger" should read "integration".

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 15:
	After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
	"REPORT ON HER MAJESTY'S COMMISSIONERS OF REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
	(1) On or before the second anniversary of the coming into force of this Act, in accordance with section 53(1) the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall appoint a person or persons to report on the operation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include an assessment of—
	(a) the overall success or otherwise of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs since its establishment including, but not limited to, a cost-benefit analysis;
	(b) the direct costs of effecting the integration;
	(c) the direct cost savings achieved by the integration;
	(d) whether efficiency gains have been achieved as a result of the establishment of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs including, but not limited to, the effects of the integration on the tax yield and the incidence of fraud;
	(e) the overall compliance burden, including the impact on day-to-day customer service and the experience of taxpayers in dealing with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs;
	(f) the performance of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the development and application of information technology and data systems;
	(g) the working relationship between Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Treasury including, but not limited to, the adequacy of arrangements for accountability;
	(h) the performance of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office including, but not limited to, a cost-benefit analysis;
	(i) the work undertaken preparatory to the integration; and
	(j) any other area that the person or persons appointed under subsection (1) considers relevant to an understanding of the creation or operation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	(3) A report under subsection (1) shall not include any assessment of—
	(a) the annual performance of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs in discharging their responsibilities as tax administrators and collectors, except in so far as these have been affected by the merger; or
	(b) any matter (whether relating to value for money or otherwise) that has been reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	(4) A report under subsection (1) shall be prepared annually for five years from the date referred to in that subsection and shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and published.
	(5) The first report under subsection (1) shall be completed within 12 months of the date referred to in that subsection.
	(6) In this section "the integration" means the creation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise."

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we come to the last of our amendments on Report, although it is not the least of them.
	Amendment No. 15 introduces a requirement for a report to be made on the integration of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise into HRMC. The noble and learned Lord will note that even the Public Bill Office found it difficult to tell the difference between a merger and an integration.
	We debated a similar amendment in Grand Committee, but we make no apology for returning to the issue now. The issue is how proper scrutiny of the integration of these bodies can be achieved. We do not believe that a proper case was made for that integration, in the sense that all the costs and benefits were fully laid out; we do not believe that the risks of implementation were properly explained; and we do not believe that the impact on taxpayers was properly identified.
	The noble and learned Lord will, I hope, acknowledge that we have not opposed the Bill, but our support has been on the basis that proper post-examination will be made of the integration, which is what the amendment proposes.
	I will not go through the individual items set out in subsection (2) of the new clause. They are there to indicate the many complex issues that we believe need to be scrutinised. In Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord said that the Comptroller and Auditor General could examine all these things. Indeed he could, and I am sure that he will examine some of them, but the issue is when, and how often. Our amendment proposes a report after the first two years of the integration, and then annually for five years.
	The noble and learned Lord also said that the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Select Committee in another place could examine the integration. Of course they can, and probably will, but this amendment ensures that there is regular information to allow those committees to determine whether and to what extent they do so.
	Following our Grand Committee debate, I have modified the amendment so that the person selected to produce the reports is not required to be independent. Some, including the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, did not like that. I am sure that any Chancellor would appoint an appropriate person, so the amendment does not seek to fetter his choice in any way.
	It is often easy for grand schemes to be introduced with a fanfare, and then to degenerate. It is genuinely hard for parliamentary scrutiny to be kept up to date on past events, given the raft of current issues that exist. I shall give the noble and learned Lord just one example of a grand scheme gone wrong: the Dome. The Comptroller and Auditor General produced a damning report after the event, but there was no requirement for regular reports, so the true cost to public funds, now nearly £1 billion, has managed to escape largely unnoticed.
	The amendment seeks to ensure only that there will be proper scrutiny of the integration. I sincerely hope that the integration does not go wrong. We have already had more than enough waste of public money over the past eight years. The chances remain high, however, that there will be unforeseen problems, whether of cost, efficiency, of tax yield, of continuity of service or of impact on the taxpayer. Parliament deserves proper oversight of the integration. I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, we have supported this measure but have expressed doubts about the ease with which it will be possible to achieve all the claims the Government have made for it. Some of the sweeping claims about the quality of taxpayer service the new department will be able to offer were repeated last week in the Red Book.
	A number of noble Lords have serious questions about those claims, not least because, to be successful, the integration will require a significant degree of additional training and improvement in computer systems, both of which are costly. In the case of IT systems, we are looking at an area where the track record, in virtually every department of government, has been poor.
	The question is whether the existing mechanisms for reviewing the operation of the merger will work effectively. I have my doubts as to whether they will, and whether the focus will remain on them five years down the track. As the noble Baroness has said, Parliament has many qualities, but one of the things that intrudes upon looking back at the success of previous decisions and legislation is current events, which crowd out the work of Select Committees in another place to a considerable extent. Whether, in five years' time, the Treasury Select Committee would wish to have another look at the efficiency and effectiveness of the merger, given everything else that was happening, is open to doubt. Therefore we support the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I wish to speak against the proposition. As there is the possibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General periodically reviewing what is happening in the Revenue, as the Public Accounts Committee carries out reviews, as the Treasury and Civil Service Committee reviews the Revenue regularly, and as from time to time the NAO carries out reviews, to add a fifth review on top is over-egging the pudding. There is ample opportunity, if parliamentarians want it, to ensure that we can sustain and maintain full scrutiny of what happens in the Inland Revenue.
	I hope that the mover of the amendment, and others, will reflect on where they stand on this issue. An additional review is not needed. It will be costly, too. Given how much we hear about the desire to get public expenditure down in the coming years, particularly from the party opposite, it would be a waste of money, adding to already fairly costly exercises that are being undertaken.
	When I reflect on where we started some weeks ago in scrutinising this legislation—all the parties being generally in favour of it and wanting to see it go through without too much difficulty, or so I thought—and then on what happened earlier this afternoon, and on what might happen now if we have another vote, I start to question whether in fact people want to see the legislation go through. I certainly do. I believe it is needed by the country. To risk the legislation falling if a general election is called, because of the difficulties with clearing all the business left over after Easter, would be irresponsible on all our parts.
	I hope that some reflection will be given to those points, and that we do not proceed to a vote, but live with the existing mechanisms available to us to scrutinise the new department's operations.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the way he has spoken. I endorse his last remarks. I, too, hope that this matter is not pressed to a vote.
	I hope to be able to tell noble Lords what will happen in a way that will give them all the reassurance they need that there will be proper reporting on the key matters to which the noble Baroness referred.
	I want to raise one matter at the outset, which is a fatal objection, as far as I am concerned, to the amendment. Subsection (2)(h) of the proposed new clause states that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should appoint a person to report on, among other things,
	"the performance of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office including, but not limited to, a cost-benefit analysis".
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will recall, and other noble Lords may note, one of the key objectives of the Bill is the separation of the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office from Customs and Revenue. That is one of the key recommendations of Mr Justice Butterfield, who inquired into customs-related cases that had been through the courts. Of all the provisions in the Bill, this one has been so free of any controversy that not a single amendment dealing with that aspect has been proposed. It is key to what Mr Justice Butterfield said; it is key to what we are seeking to do, which is to create a new, independent prosecuting authority—separate from Revenue; separate from Customs; and reporting not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to me.
	It would be wrong for a report to be made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a department that is my department, on a prosecuting authority that is intended to be separate and independent from Customs, in accordance with a strong judicial recommendation, so that the interests of justice may be maintained. Even if I thought, which I do not, that the rest of the amendment made sense, I would oppose it on that ground. There is no way of separating that aspect of the amendment out, because it is part and parcel of what the noble Baroness has proposed. So I resist it on that ground.
	I turn in what I hope the noble Baroness will think is a more conciliatory way to the issues with which she is concerned; that is, whether HMRC will be a success and whether we will have the opportunity of looking at whether it will be. I have previously indicated, and I want to enumerate them again, the number of different ways in which full and proper parliamentary scrutiny by existing bodies can, and no doubt will, take place, to judge the success of the new department. Some of those ways have already been referred to in the debate. What is necessary, therefore, is perhaps not any new mechanism for reviewing, because the scrutiny exists, but making sure that information of the sort that the noble Baroness wants is available.
	In a spirit of meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness, I shall offer two firm commitments which I hope noble Lords will welcome. First, the spring report that HMRC will publish early this summer will specifically cover work undertaken preparatory to the integration, as envisaged by subsection (2)(i) of the proposed new clause. That will be an early test of the Government's wider commitment to ensuring that full and proper reporting on HMRC takes place. Noble Lords will be able to see the first instalment in just a few months.
	Secondly, the reports that HMRC will make to Parliament in autumn 2005 and spring 2006, as well as autumn 2006—that will be the annual report that looks back over the first full financial year of operation of the new department—will each include a specific and additional chapter on the progress of HMRC since its creation. I can assure the House that the new chapter will draw together information that becomes available as progress is made following the integration during the next 12 months or so.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I am pleased to hear what my noble and learned friend says about the reporting of the changes that will be made, but what impact will that have on the Bill which we understand is going to come next year to take us to the second stage of the integration of the two departments?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to finish what I was saying about what will take place. I will then give him a clear answer to that question.
	The new chapter that will appear in the reports will draw together information that becomes available as progress is made following integration. That will ensure, to the extent that other published information may not quite meet noble Lords' concerns, that noble Lords will be able to see, in a single document, an up-to-date report on progress. In those early reports, HMRC will seek to provide, in particular, information on the direct costs, where it is possible to identify them, of bringing the two departments together, updating estimates already made and providing the information required by subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause. That covers another subsection.
	The spring and annual reports will also cover the benefits that result from integration in terms of greater efficiency and reduced costs, such as staff costs and overheads, thereby providing the information required by subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause. In addition, the annual and spring reports will, as a matter of course, cover the outcomes of the department's PSA and efficiency targets, which together will give a clear picture of how the new department is delivering success. The PSA targets cover in specific terms the department's commitment to improve compliance across the taxes by 2007–08 and to improve the extent to which individuals and businesses pay the amount of tax due and receive the credits and payments to which they are entitled. That is the information that subsection (2)(d) of the proposed new clause would require.
	HMRC has undertaken to strengthen border protection against threats to the security, social and economic integrity and environment of the United Kingdom in a way that takes into account the need to maintain the UK as a competitive location in which to do business. HMRC's objective is to improve customer experience, support business and reduce the compliance burden. Reference to the latter is made in subsection (2)(e) of the proposed new clause.
	In addition to those PSA targets, further commitments were made in this year's Budget. Mr David Varney, chairman designate of HMRC, has already committed publicly to a range of measures that will deliver real reductions in compliance cost. I will not weary noble Lords this evening with those, but I am happy to provide them in writing to the noble Baroness if she would like them. The annual and spring reports will also cover progress on those specific compliance cost measures as they develop.
	So a great deal of information will be either covered in the spring or annual reports of HMRC or otherwise be publicly reported to enable Parliament, the Treasury Select Committee, PAC, the Comptroller and Auditor General and all the people about whom we have spoken previously to form a view on whether HMRC is meeting its desired objective of improving efficiency and customer experience and closing the tax gap.
	I hope that noble Lords and the noble Baroness in particular will recognise that we, having listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed in Grand Committee in particular, have come forward with a substantial commitment to meet her desire to have information on such matters brought together in a single report. It will keep the pressure up on HM Revenue and Customs, which was a point that noble Lord, Lord Newby, made in Grand Committee. He wanted to see that as well.
	I want to draw noble Lords' attention to another factor, mentioned by my right honourable friend in another place. The Chancellor will shortly issue an annual remit for the chairman designate of HMRC. That will include the general direction and priorities of the department; the monitoring arrangements for delivery against the remit; specific targets for the department; and the high-level policy delivery agenda. Where do we go from there? As we move forward in time, it will become increasingly unrealistic and theoretical to distinguish costs and savings that are attributable to the integration from the aggregate costs of running the department. It will emerge over time, but surely we would all agree that a stage will come when trying to separate them would become artificial, and potentially misleading. The content of the spring and annual reports that I referred to will be kept under review, so that a view can be taken on the continuing need for the special additional chapter that I have identified.
	I have taken a few moments to put the detail on the record so that there is no doubt. I hope that the noble Baroness will receive that in the spirit in which it is intended; that is, to meet her concerns without the need to put formal requirements in the Bill for a specific report over a period of time. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, indicated, that could give rise to artificiality—an additional and unnecessary burden. I hope that noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who has been sympathetic to the amendment, will accept that that meets the concern. Nothing needs to be put in the Bill, as we have come forward, listened carefully to what was said in Grand Committee, and given an important assurance and commitment.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords—

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am sorry, I have not answered the question put to me by my noble friend Lord Sheldon. We have not confirmed a new Bill at the second stage. The review of powers, which I talked of before, may result in legislation, as may other business developments. There is nothing definite. However, to the extent that there is a need for new legislation, I am sure that everybody in the House—and, indeed, in another place—will look carefully at the reports I have identified to evaluate the proposals that are then put forward. In that respect, they will be helpful should such legislation be brought forward.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his support of the concept lying behind the amendment. I also thank the Minister for the comprehensive way in which he responded to the amendment. In fact, he has moved on since we debated it in Grand Committee. The Minister first raised a fatal objection, which seemed to be that one bit of the Government did not like another bit appointing somebody to look at their own office—

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am sorry, but that really underestimates the point. The whole purpose of separating the Revenue prosecuting office from Customs and Excise is to separate it. Lord Justice Butterfield said that it was essential that there should not be that connection. To treat them as still part of the same department, and thus reporting to the wrong Minister, undermines the constitutional importance of the independence of prosecutors. It is nothing to do with not liking one bit of the Government; I like my right honourable friend the Chancellor very much indeed.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I did not want to upset the Minister so much; I apologise if I have. It was only intended as a report to be laid before Parliament, not as a report to be made to the Chancellor to upset the Minister. Clearly, I must look at that aspect again carefully. I also want to read carefully what the Minister has said regarding placing on the record the report which he suggests will cover the concerns set out in subsection (2) of my amendment—apart from paragraph (h). I would like to look again to see the extent to which he has actually met the concerns. There was so much detail that it was difficult to do so. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment today, but reserve the right to return to it at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The central purpose of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill is to improve the local environment. The quality of our local neighbourhoods directly affects everybody's quality of life. It is the first thing that people think of when asked what makes the most important contribution to their environment or community. It also helps to create a clean, safe, green community—which helps the well-being and overall health of society.
	This Bill will help local communities—rural and urban—to create neighbourhoods where people are happy to live. That means cleaner, safer streets; well designed public buildings and spaces; welcoming parks and village greens, and countryside free of fly-tipped waste. The Bill is also a fundamental part of government strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour. Dirty streets, burnt-out cars, graffiti and piles of fly-tipped rubbish are all evidence of the types of anti-social behaviour that directly affect how safe we feel in our own neighbourhoods. Indeed, they matter to society as a whole. Their total cost amounts to over £3 billion to taxpayers and council tax payers.
	However, the true impact of the Bill is wider than this. We believe it will help to tackle the continuum of behaviour ranging from comparatively low-level environmental offences such as dropping litter and fly-posting, through to more serious damage; spraying graffiti, vandalism, property damage and very serious crime. To deal with crime effectively, we need to tackle the full range of criminal and anti-social behaviour. We must not ignore low-level offences, or allow a degraded local environment to give people the message that dropping rubbish, spraying graffiti and other anti-social behaviour does not matter.
	Hence, one of the Bill's key provisions recognises this link between crime and local environmental quality, by requiring crime and disorder reduction partnerships to tackle environmental crime where it is a priority in their area. This is already happening in some areas. We are not being prescriptive: where environmental crime is not such a problem, then it does not need to feature in their strategies. However, where there are problems, we expect local crime reduction partnerships to tackle them robustly. Our approach—which has been strongly endorsed by senior police representatives—will ensure that these local partnerships consider all the issues leading to crime and disorder in their community, including environmental crime.
	This measure, and others in the Bill, is the result of extensive consultations led by Defra over the past two years—including the "clean neighbourhoods" consultation last year. The measures respond directly to what local authorities and the Environment Agency have told us about the obstacles to enforcing existing legislation, why some provisions are difficult to use, and about changes that are needed if we are really to tackle anti-social behaviour and environmental problems effectively. I hope that the Bill provides common-sense solutions to these problems, giving the new powers and better tools that have been asked for.
	To encourage better enforcement, the Bill increases the number of offences for which fixed penalties can be used as an alternative to prosecution. Greater use of fixed penalty notices should provide better value for money for the taxpayer. Local authorities can, sometimes, be reluctant to prosecute environmental crimes, as they find it expensive and time-consuming simply to go through the courts. They do not always recover all their costs, even when successful. Local authorities will be able to keep the receipts from fixed penalties. That is to help offset the cost of enforcing the legislation. They will be able to vary the amounts of most of these penalties to reflect local conditions—and to offer discounts for early payment.
	The Bill also gives new powers to parish councils so that the most local level of our democratic structures can play their part in creating cleaner, safer, greener communities. Parish councils—and community councils in Wales—will be able to issue fixed penalty notices for a range of offences relating to litter, graffiti, fly-posting and dogs. These are local problems which parish councils are well placed to address-being only too familiar with them. It is true that not all parish councils will want this power, or indeed be able to take advantage of it. Yet others, with the necessary skills and resources, will welcome it.
	Another provision relates to the gating of highways that attract anti-social behaviour. They provide opportunities for crime, and we need to ensure we have the powers to deal with that. This will be particularly useful for those nuisance alleyways in some of our towns and cities. In this context, I am aware of the point made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and can clarify that this power is indeed also intended to deal with anti-social behaviour on highways other than just alleys: it is the behaviour, rather than the type of highway, that we are focusing on. In all these circumstances, gating will be reversible. Should local conditions improve or needs change, it can easily be reversed.
	Another problem is that of abandoned or nuisance vehicles. This Bill will help the Government achieve a reduction in the number of such vehicles that do so much to blight our communities. It will strengthen local authorities' powers to remove immediately abandoned vehicles from the streets and to reduce opportunities for arson and other forms of vandalism. It will also make it an offence to sell or repair cars on the road as part of a business.
	The Bill tackles the growing problem of litter with a wide range of measures. It will close a loophole in the current law to make it clear that dropping litter anywhere is unacceptable. Neglected areas of land such as the gardens of unoccupied houses can often attract large amounts of litter. The Bill will enable local authorities to make the owner or occupier of land that is heavily littered responsible for ensuring that it is cleared and to prevent the site reverting to a littered state. We will continue to encourage tough action against those who drop litter, but owners and occupiers themselves also have a responsibility to keep their land clear of large amounts of litter.
	Other litter measures include making street litter control notices, which deal with the litter generated by businesses such as fast food outlets, much easier to use. Local authorities will also be able to control the distribution of flyers and leaflets. The Bill clarifies that cigarette butts and chewing gum are litter and within the definition of the term. Thus it confirms, for the avoidance of doubt, that local authorities can take action against people dropping these materials. It also confirms that local authorities have a duty to clean streets of gum and cigarette butts, but it does not extend or add to that duty.
	The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 addressed the blight of graffiti through graffiti removal notices which this Bill will extend to cover fly-posting, alongside other measures to enable local authorities to deal more effectively with the fly-posting problem.
	Fly-tipping is a real and serious problem in both our towns and in the countryside. As well as degrading the local area, it can have environmental and health risks. We are providing a range of measures to strengthen the legislation and to increase the penalties for fly-tipping. This includes the problem of fly-tipping on derelict sites where an absentee landlord allows his land to be used as an illegal dump. Enforcement agencies will be able to require the landowner to remove the waste. But we will continue to protect responsible owners who are the innocent victims of fly-tipping, so this will be enforced only where there is no occupier on the land, and then only if the owner knew about or allowed the fly-tipping to happen.
	The Bill's fly-tipping measures will enable the Environment Agency and local authorities to deal more effectively and more immediately with those responsible for fly-tipping. We hope that this will send a strong message that fly-tipping is a serious environmental crime, and one which will not be tolerated.
	The Bill also gives local authorities greater flexibility to carry out their waste management obligations more effectively, and reforms the recycling credit scheme to bring it in line with current measures to encourage reuse and recycling.
	The Bill provides parish councils and district councils with new powers to control dogs, simplifying the current by-law system. It also gives local authorities sole responsibility for dealing with stray dogs. This provision has been welcomed by the police, and we have worked closely with the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA to ensure that the welfare of stray dogs is safeguarded.
	We are broadening the measures to deal with the nuisances caused by noise, insects and artificial lighting. Noise problems, such as from malfunctioning burglar alarms and badly sited security lighting can cause real problems for neighbours, while insect infestations arising from some activities—such as sewage treatment works—can make life a real misery for local people.
	The Bill contains a measure to put the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the Government's champion in England for architecture and the design of public space, on a statutory basis. This changes CABE's status, but not its role or responsibilities, although it will enhance the body's accountability to Parliament.
	All the measures I have described are common sense and necessary. They address the day-to-day problems faced by many of our citizens. They have attracted widespread support among the groups we have consulted, as well as from the relevant enforcement agencies. For example, the Environment Agency is "strongly supportive" of these provisions, while the Local Government Association has said that it is,
	"delighted to see significant new powers for local councils".
	We believe that they will improve people's quality of life and provide opportunities for local authorities and other enforcement agencies to make life better for our citizens.
	This Bill is an integral part of the Government's strategy for improving the environment, for developing a more sustainable future and for dealing with anti-social behaviour. It responds to calls by individuals, groups, local authorities and enforcement agencies to be given the practical tools needed to promote cleaner, safer and greener communities.
	The Bill has been widely supported by all political parties both here and in another place and by stakeholders. I hope that it will be given a positive passage through the course of its proceedings in this House, although no doubt we shall have our usual interesting debates on certain aspects of its provisions. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill and for the benefits that he expects it to bring. There is no doubt that in a sense it is a politically seductive Bill, provided that you do not look too closely. The real question is not whether this is a good Bill, but how good the Bill is and whether we can make it a better one. The answer to that, of course, is yes. The function of this House is to consider legislation, to pick up any problems, and to make improvements.
	Like the Minister, I express the hope that we will have the time to make that possible. I am sure that we shall have many interesting discussions about various aspects of the Bill. But we all acknowledge the position we are in, and we may not be granted that time. My feeling on that is that if we do not have enough time, it will be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. However, that is where we stand and there is nothing to be done about it. These matters are out of our hands, and perhaps that is just as well.
	The Minister has rightly pointed out that society already spends huge sums on the areas covered by the Bill. The Local Government Association reports that each year it collects some 30 million tonnes of litter from the streets. I find that rather hard to believe, but there it is. Figures that I have been given show that the cost of dealing with that litter is £450 million a year. Abandoned vehicles, which seem to increase year on year, currently cost £27 million a year to deal with. In 2002–03 some 310,000 vehicles were disposed of, making the cost of each disposal £830. One can only wonder at the validity of such a figure.
	The removal of graffiti in London is reported to cost £23 million per annum. That is not what is spent by local authorities, but what it costs London. However, that figure could be immensely inflated if one were to take into account the damage to property and the adverse effect on property values. London boroughs spend on average around £204,000 a year on the removal of graffiti. Across London that amounts to £7 million, but that sum bears no relationship to the actual cost of graffiti. Of course, much of it is cleared by property owners and so forth. For what it is worth, the authority in Newcastle estimates that every time it is called out to deal with a graffiti problem, it costs £100.
	The casual approach of society to this wretched matter of litter is already costing a great deal of money. Will the Bill help? In part it depends on the willingness of society to pay because the Bill imposes increased costs.
	The Government are a major contributor to local government expenditure. Some of us have taken part in the annual negotiations. They are always fraught with difficulty. There never seems to be enough money for local government to do the things that it ought to do; still less is there ever additional money to do the additional things that local government ought to do. Local councillors also come under pressure. We seem to have done away with capping, but it does not reduce the coercive pressure that is put on authorities to contain their expenditure within limits that governments think are acceptable.
	What does the Bill do? It provides a revenue stream to local government from the fixed penalty notices—I refer to a Defra figure, which the Minister will undoubtedly recognise—which is a little short of £5 million per annum, as far as it can be calculated. However, that is not really the purpose of the fixed penalty notices scheme. It seems to me that the real purpose is to provide a positive disincentive to people to chuck litter about, dump their cars and so on. However, that relies on enforcement to be effective. Who will carry out the enforcement? Clause 30(1)(a) refers to,
	"an employee of the authority who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving notices under section 43(1)".
	Clause 30(1)(b) refers to,
	"any person who, in pursuance of arrangements made with the authority, has the function of giving such notices".
	Clause 30(1)(c) refers to,
	"any employee of such a person who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving such notices".
	Who are these people? If they are not real people, they are nothing. I have given the matter some thought. Perhaps the Minister will come up with something more. I thought of environmental health officers but their work, generally speaking, is not out on the street, and it is out on the street that we need enforcement for these measures. Traffic wardens are out on the streets. That is fine, so long as people commit offences when the traffic wardens are around, which is mostly during the day. The police might be appointed to undertake this function, as if they have nothing else to do already. Community support officers are an adjunct to the police nowadays and no doubt some reinforcement there would help. However, the point I wish to make is that for fixed penalty notices to have a disincentive effect someone has to see someone commit the offence and book them at the time. That depends on having eyes on the street, the cost of which is unknown.
	The Second Reading briefing in another place mentions a Defra figure of £34 million as the additional cost of dealing with abandoned vehicles. ENCAMS reports a figure of an extra £342 million if street litter clearing notices are fully implemented. That depends partly on redefining the dropping of chewing gum as litter. The clearing of chewing gum appears to cost between 50p to £1.50 per square metre of pavement. Westminster City Council calculates that it will cost £9 million to clear its streets of chewing gum. If you start to multiply that, by the time you get to a national figure the figure which I have just mentioned is probably very conservative.
	The Environment Agency estimates that the cost of dealing with fly-tipping properly will increase by another £100 million to £150 million. It is very difficult to estimate what the cost will be if local authorities take over responsibility for dog control. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the question of resource transfer from the police as the police will no longer have that function or responsibility which they at present enjoy, if that is the correct term. Proper cover has to be provided 24 hours a day. If that additional cost falls on local authorities without adequate resource transfer, council tax bills will come under severe pressure. Increasing council tax is not the most popular thing to do. We need to acknowledge that the Bill, with all its attractions, raises expectations, but that the cost must be recognised if the Bill is to succeed.
	I turn to the content of the Bill. I cannot help but observe that the clause concerned with litter clearing notices has an interesting list of exceptions. All the exceptions are dealt with under Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the real problem that I have with this part of the Bill concerns who will police the Environmental Protection Act. The magistrates' courts can act on a complaint under Section 91 of the Act. There are litter abatement notices in Section 92 and street litter control notices in Section 93.
	I suspect that I am not an exception and that we all have our favourite offensive litter dump on a highway or a railway line which we notice as we travel about the countryside, which is patently not being dealt with under the present system. For the life of me I do not see why fixed penalty notices should not be issued in those circumstances to deal with the problem or at least to provide the owner of the site—the exceptions apply to public bodies of one kind or another which have a duty to keep their sites clean—with a reminder that they need to do that.
	A fixed penalty notice, which could be issued immediately, would at least be an immediate action on the part of a local authority. That local authority could tell another department of the local authority or another public body, "You are not fulfilling the duty that is laid upon you". Compliance applies across the whole of a commercial business. The compliance department is required to operate behind a Chinese wall so that it cannot be interfered with. It operates with absolute integrity across the business.
	My problem with litter clearance notices is that they are not applied widely enough. They ought to apply universally. If a public body—which is otherwise exempt under the Bill in this regard—commits an offence, something ought to be done about it. At the moment in my view the system is patently not working properly.
	I have a somewhat different problem with light pollution. We are all familiar with lights all over the countryside. Clause 102(4) contains a list of exceptions in that regard. The Minister and I have often argued about putting exceptions in Bills and about lists of exceptions being either too long or too short. I really think that it would be better if there were no exceptions at all. If we are looking for additional exceptions, horticulture is an obvious one, where controlled daylight is essential for the production of some horticultural crops. If you happen to live in the neighbourhood of a town, that can be difficult for the neighbours.
	The real problem with lighting is the huge waste of energy and therefore the huge waste of generating capacity and the possibility of the huge waste of carbon dioxide emissions to generate the electricity that is producing the offence. The Bill does nothing to attack that problem.
	I am happy to see a roundabout half a mile away from the front of my house in the dark, but I find it ridiculous when I turn around and look out of the back of my house to be able to count the individual traffic lights on a road junction six miles away. The same applies in principle to any industrial site or airport. Modern lighting can be directed at the area that needs to be lit. There is an example of a stretch of road near me that was recently redone. With the lighting on the road itself improved, the amount of lighting that was disappearing elsewhere reduced almost to zero, and you could not see the lights from any distance at all. Light pollution is a different problem; it is an environmental problem on a different scale and of a different nature. The Minister might say that my argument is not appropriate for this Bill, but, if we do not deal with it in this Bill, where do we deal with it? We have the opportunity to deal with it in this Bill.
	That is yet another problem, but there are a number of smaller problems with the Bill that I find fascinating. The Environment Agency can issue fixed penalty notices, but it cannot retain the revenue that it gets from them. That is not defined under the Bill, and it should be dealt with. Transport for London is responsible for a remarkably large part of London's road network, but it has no authority to issue fixed penalty notices on the roads for which it is responsible. Why not? It has the responsibility for the roads. That particularly relates to Clauses 3 and 4, which deal with parking "vehicles for sale" and the offence of making repairs to vehicles on the roads.
	Clause 50, which deals with the power to require the owners of land to remove waste, appears to be inconsistent with Clause 20, which deals with litter clearing notices. That should be taken care of. Clause 88(4) states that the Commission for Architecture has the power to provide advice,
	"whether or not it is requested to do so".
	That fascinates me. Clause 88(8) states that the commission,
	"may make charges in respect of any service provided by it".
	Can it make charges for services it provides that have not been asked for? It is not defined in the Bill, and we need to deal with that sort of thing.
	This is what I would call a prototype Bill. It is a good Bill, but it could be a better Bill. I hope that we have time to improve it.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I welcome the Minister, who has come down from his rural fastnesses to what I consider to be the real world of local backstreet politics. The Liberal Democrats gained control of our local council at the elections in June, and we had an all-day strategy meeting to decide what to do with this newfound local political power. The overwhelming view of everyone there was that there were two huge issues that we had to tackle: one was dog dirt and the other was litter—I welcome the Minister to the real world. I will try to remember to continue calling him "the Minister" and not "Councillor Whitty", although it is interesting that of the small number of people here today for this Second Reading debate a high proportion are either councillors or former councillors, who will know what I am talking about.
	On behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the House, I give the Bill a general welcome, although it appears likely that it will have an unsatisfactory passage through the House. There are a lot of detailed parts that those of us who think we know about such things in our little back streets would like to scrutinise rather more than we will be able to. Nevertheless the Bill, even if it has to go through the wash-up procedure, deserves to pass, and I hope that that will happen.
	Part 1 includes the question of gating orders. All those who have been involved in the provision of what are called "alley gates", or in our part of the world "backstreet gates" know that, where they are done properly with the consent of the people who live there, they can be beneficial. I hope that the provision, which can apply to highways in general, will not be used to block the rights of way that would be used by recreational users of the kind who were enthused by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which the Minister was instrumental in getting through the House. There is a question there about what will be done to prevent the occasional local authority misusing it in that way.
	Part 2 is about vehicles for sale and repair on the road. People who have looked at the Bill can see the potential problem with the limit of not less than two vehicles in a particular road. In other words, you can have one vehicle in a particular road for sale, but you cannot have two. What will be done to stop people abusing that by putting a series of cars at a crossroads, for example, where lots of different roads come together, or in other circumstances where one road turns into another and the name changes? Will regulations come out to prevent that kind of abuse?
	A great deal of the Bill is about litter and refuse. We welcome the extension of the litter control powers to all types of land, including water. The new litter clearing notices appear on the face of it to be a better way of doing things. Like everything else, it will all come out in the wash—or perhaps in the wash-up—and we will see whether it works in practice. It appears that what is being proposed here is a great advance.
	The Bill does not tackle the problem of waste minimisation and reducing the sources of litter, which get larger day by day. Everyone says that we have got to reduce waste and we have got to go in for waste minimisation. A large amount of packaging is used, whether on take-aways that people chuck away half-eaten in the street or sweet packaging or all the other sorts of packaging. The Bill is not about that, but it is worth making the marker here that the Government are still not tackling the problem adequately.
	There is a potential problem with the controls that will be available on the free distribution of printed matter. The exceptions are:
	"Where the distribution is for political purposes or for the purposes of a religion or belief".
	Will the Minister tell us what the definition of "political purposes" will be, and what the definition of "belief" might be? It may well be that those of us who hand out party political material for our sins—sad as we may be—will be okay, but what about people who are perhaps handing out material opposing a planning development or opposing the building of wind farms? They are taking a position on an issue that is not party political in that sense, but it is part of the local democratic process. Will they be caught by that? If they will be caught by it, there is a question of free speech.
	We welcome the inclusion of fly-posting in the definition of graffiti. At the moment, in the town in which I live, Colne in Lancashire, the main street is plastered with fly-posting for something that calls itself a local night spot—whatever that may be. I think it is just a pub that has music. The whole street is plastered with posters. It is very difficult to catch the people who put up that stuff, because they are simply local lads who are paid to do it. If we can approach and prosecute or put fixed penalty notices on the people who benefit from it, who are clearly behind it, that will be a great step forward. The beneficiaries of fly-posting really ought not to be able to get away with it as they do, so we welcome that part of the Bill.
	A great deal of the Bill is about fly-tipping. It is interesting; fly-tipping is merely a continuum of someone throwing a bit of litter away, to a plastic bag full of stuff, to a dustbin bag, ending with multiple lorry-loads. An excellent briefing that we had from the Environment Agency about the Bill told us that, throughout the country, more than 40 lorry-loads of stuff a day is fly-tipped. That is obviously dreadful. You can never find out who has done a great deal of the fly-tipping that takes place, because it is simply two or three dustbin bags or some builder's rubble that you cannot trace. The cost of clearing it up inevitably falls on the local authority, and it will never get it back. It is the kind of indirect cost on local authorities that a lot of people in local government think is not properly accounted for when the financial settlements come round.
	We certainly welcome the repeal of the divestment clause so far as waste disposal authorities are concerned, to free them from that restriction. That is sensible.
	The provisions in the Bill about dogs are almost entirely welcome. The suggestion that the multiplicity of confusing by-laws that there are around the country in relation to dogs will be replaced by dog control orders—they will be the same everywhere, so people will understand them—is a real step forward. The flexibility on penalties is welcome, although the local authorities involved will have very substantial costs in terms of staff and their training. One wonders whether the Government have taken that into account.
	The whole control and regulation side on dogs is only half the question. The other half of it—they have to go hand in hand—is that, if local authorities are to tackle the problem properly, they have to operate what might be called a dog waste service. Dog bins should be provided throughout the area. People should be able to use them. The bins would obviously have to be emptied and the dog dirt collected. In our experience, you must also provide people with free pooper-scoopers, as they are called, and the technical equipment to scrape the stuff up and take it away.
	This may not be the sort of stuff your Lordships normally talk about, but it is absolutely fundamental in keeping our streets clean. Although the provisions in the Bill are welcome so far as local authorities are concerned in giving them more powers, if local authorities want to do the job properly they have to do lots of things that are discretionary, so are not taken account of in the settlements. Nevertheless, they are essential if we are to have clean streets, parks, playgrounds and public spaces.
	I have two main qualifications about the Bill. I have touched on the first—local authority resources—already. The Minister might like to say something about it when he replies, although it is not his department that will divvy out what money is available to local authorities next year for this and everything else. It is a fundamental issue. Local authorities can do a brilliant job on litter, fly-tipping, graffiti, fly-posting, dog dirt and all the other matters, but they need the funding to do it, from one source or another. It is easy stuff to cut when you are really under financial pressures—when your budget has to be cut. They are the discretionary things on which it is all too easy to say, "We'll cut back this year and hope that we can do it again next year". That is no good.
	Alongside that, I hope that the regulations that will come out under the Bill in various ways will not be too prescriptive. Where there is room for flexibility, I hope that local authorities will be given it. There is a lot of good practice around at the moment, and a lot of scope for experimentation. Let us not use the regulations to control local authorities too tightly. This is exactly the kind of area where, if you let local authorities experiment with their own thing, you will get a lot of good practice that can then be copied by other people.
	My second general qualification is not to oppose the Bill in any way, but to make the point that rules and enforcement generally are not enough. They are necessary, and we welcome most of the provisions in the Bill, but they are not sufficient to turn our neighbourhoods in all parts of the country into clean, healthy, pleasant and well maintained places where people want to live. Neighbourhood by neighbourhood—it cannot be imposed from above—we need to build a culture.
	If the culture in the neighbourhood is that there is a lot of rubbish and graffiti; that the street furniture and the things for which the council is responsible are not maintained properly; that the streets are dirty and the lights are left out; that there is a lot of petty crime around, which is certainly connected with such poor environment; that everyone chucks rubbish in their front gardens and backyards, or next-door's backyards; that the public spaces are neglected; that there is a lack of social and community facilities, particularly for young people; that, if in an idealistic move two, three or four years ago people planted trees to improve the area, but half those trees have been vandalised and the council has not come round and replanted them and refused to give in to the vandals—if that sort of culture exists in the neighbourhood, there is no hope.
	If you see someone dumping rubbish in such an area, you cannot go up to them and say, "Excuse me, that's not what you should be doing". You can do that only if the neighbourhood is clean and there is not a culture of rubbish, because they will otherwise say, "Everybody else is doing it. Why shouldn't I?". If you want social controls, you have to build locally to have a neighbourhood that is not litter-strewn—where there are litter bins, so if you see someone dropping a fag packet, you can say, "Excuse me, there's a litter bin there", which nosy people like me do.
	If people allow their dogs to leave dog dirt on the pavement and there are no dog bins locally, it is much more difficult to persuade those people to clean up after their dog and take the dirt home. If the neighbourhoods are clean, there are litter bins, the public and private spaces are well maintained and things are replaced when they are broken, it is possible to build up even in the most difficult neighbourhoods a culture in which people look after their area. They look after their own property and the property around them. They then have the confidence and ability to influence other people and build a local culture of pride in their area.
	I have said before in the House that the Government have a huge number of initiatives from lots of departments, bodies, quangos and authorities, particularly in neighbourhoods that they consider disadvantaged. One is community policing, which is highly successful in the part of Lancashire in which I live. Others include: community support officers; neighbourhood wardens; all sorts of local networks and partnerships; outreach officers from the social services, the youth service and other departments; estate workers, perhaps from the housing department; and various community forums. All those people tend to do their thing individually. What is really needed in many places is to bring them together.
	That is not something for which the Government can legislate in a Bill such as this, but it is something with which parish councils can get involved, and particularly elected local councils and councillors at district level. You have a lot of councillors at that level not representing very many people—perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 each—so you have a low ratio of electors to councillors. Councillors themselves can get involved and help to build the kind of comprehensive neighbourhood management that is essential in such an area. I am talking about bringing together people with the ability, credibility and legitimacy, led by perhaps parish or district councillors or other key people in the community to co-ordinate everything that is going on in a place that is part of the housing market renewal pathfinder areas—which is a different context—in north-east Lancashire. As part of that we are getting funding for neighbourhood management.
	I am very optimistic and enthusiastic about that. I had better not say too much as people will start saying that I am praising the Labour Government, but praise where it is due. I am optimistic, and have to say that many of the Bill's provisions will be of great help in the work that we are trying to do on neighbourhood management. If it does not work, I shall come back and tell your Lordships, but I hope that I can say what a success it has been.
	There is general support for the Bill. I am disappointed, as is the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we shall probably not be able to discuss and worry out the details of how it will work, which is the function of the House. Nevertheless, we wish it well.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, although I have never served as a local councillor, I have for the past four years chaired the New Deal for Communities programme in Liverpool in the Kensington area.
	It is not an exaggeration to say that it has been one of the most demanding yet instructive and inspiring experiences of my life, working with local people to make their neighbourhood a better place in which to live and work—in short, turning their neighbourhood back into a community.
	On behalf of local people working for the regeneration of their areas, I, too, welcome the Bill, both for its tenor and much of the detail. I can assure your Lordships that many of the measures will bring benefits to neighbourhoods.
	In Kensington, Liverpool and on Merseyside, some of those measures have already been piloted to great effect. Local strategies, led by partnerships of local people and statutory agencies, are already in place. For example, alley-gating, as has already been mentioned, and which I have seen, has turned dangerous back streets of terraced houses that were vulnerable to burglaries, prostitution and drug dealing into safer territory where elderly people especially feel more secure in their own homes.
	Furthermore, again working with the statutory services, involving local people in projects to clear their streets and keep them clean has restored to local people a sense of pride in where they live. The Government are to be commended on introducing legislation that assists local people who are keen to stay in and regenerate their neighbourhoods.
	That is what has impressed me about my involvement with New Deal for Communities. Observers often criticise inner-city and outer estate neighbourhoods for their poor record in voting in elections. But that low turnout at the polls has to be compared and contrasted with well attended and, often, especially in Liverpool, feisty local meetings, where people turn out in their hundreds to talk about housing, schools and cleaner neighbourhoods. At one such meeting, I asked people to say how much time they had spent on local, voluntary, community activity. More than half the people at the meeting responded, saying that they had spent 10, 20 or 30 hours in the previous week. One or two of them said that they had spent 40 hours. At the end of the meeting, a young mother said that in the previous year she had been to 174 meetings, most of which lasted for three to four hours. When I informed a Minister, he rightly said, "That's a full-time job". Indeed, there are many people in such communities who work to that degree.
	They work on citizens' panels, neighbourhood planning groups, housing action groups, school governing bodies and local environment groups. In our cities and on outer estates, it is not an exaggeration to say that there are small dynamos of regeneration that will be well served by the legislation.
	Yet, a word of caution. We are at the outset of a major housing programme—especially the housing market renewal initiative with proposals for massive compulsory purchase and relocation of local people. My anxiety comes in a question to the Minister. Do the Government have a policy to keep within areas of regeneration the very people with a proven track record of serving their community? My worry is that with relocation, we shall remove from the neighbourhood the very people who are so vital to its regeneration—what pundits call the social capital.
	Renewing communities is not just about smartening the fabric but about giving confidence to local people to take the lead in shaping the future of their communities. Cleaner, greener, safer neighbourhoods need legislation. They also need local people who have the skills of survival and the commitment to both place and community.
	I warmly welcome the Bill and ask the Government to bear in mind that people as well as legislation make neighbourhoods clean and environments green. In short, people as well as legislation turn neighbourhoods back into communities.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, the Bill takes a strategic, cross-governmental approach to local environmental issues, which affect everyone's quality of life. It highlights the important link between the state of the immediate local environment, petty crime and anti-social behaviour. People want to live in communities that are not castigated by litter, graffiti, vandalism and burnt-out cars. It is a universal problem that is not limited to disadvantaged urban areas. It equally affects village life and rural communities.
	I declare an interest as a dairy farmer, a director of Dairy Farmers of Britain and a director of the Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance.
	The Bill is a direct response to requests from local authorities and the Environment Agency for better powers to deal with local environmental degradation. The Local Government Association welcomed the measures saying,
	"the proposed powers will allow councils to take effective action against environmental crime".
	It used the word appropriately.
	The Environment Agency is strongly supportive and has worked closely with Defra in developing these measures, which form a key part of the Cleaner, Safer, Greener agenda and build on the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
	Although local authorities have some concerns regarding the set-up costs, it is acknowledged that in the longer term these proposals should save money as local authorities will be able to retain and reinvest income from the newly established fixed penalty notices. There are also proposals in the Bill to allow improvements in cost recovery for investigation and enforcement (Clause 42) and clean-up (Clause 43) in cases where there have been successful prosecutions.
	The biggest problems in rural areas are associated with fly-tipping, which is most acute at the urban fringes where farmers and growers have to contend with dumped rubbish, burnt-out cars and waste tipped by developers. One of the vital provisions in the Bill—at Clause 54—allows for regulations requiring developers of large construction and demolition projects to prepare site waste management plans. About a quarter of all illegally dumped waste comes from construction, demolition and excavation activities.
	The main provision dealing with fly-tipping is Clause 50, which seeks to amend Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under that Act, a notice can be served on an occupier of land requiring dumped material to be cleared. An occupier can appeal against the notice on the basis that the material was fly-tipped. Clause 50 extends the power to serve a notice on owners, but it retains the defence for the owner if the material was fly-tipped. It is commendable that it is recognised that the innocent owner or occupier of land should not be penalised for material being fly-tipped. However, that seems to be at odds with Clause 20, which introduces a new Section 92A in replacement of Section 90 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. New Section 92A allows a local authority to designate an area to be litter-free and thus enforce an owner or occupier to clear dumped material without allowing the defence that the material was fly-tipped. That does not help to endorse the "polluter pays" principle and it will put a considerable burden on owners and occupiers.
	In reality, many occupiers of land in rural areas clear rubbish and fly-tipped material at their own cost to prevent further incidents and damage to equipment and livestock. However, workable solutions will be found only when local authorities and the Environment Agency appreciate local realities, and Clause 20 will need close examination in Committee. The preferred position is to be able to use the powers under Clause 50 to require the person who deposited the waste to remove it, whenever possible.
	The other provisions in the Bill are generally welcome. It is pleasing that under the "nuisance: lighting" measures, lighting for sports will be exempted under Clause 103. Speaking as a trustee for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which seeks to encourage grass-roots participation in sports, we have constantly funded lighting to sports facilities as that greatly extends participation. However, the measures regarding noise in Clause 84 extend the powers under the Noise Act 1996 and could potentially be used against sports facilities.
	I have been informed that apparently local residents near South Hampstead High School objected to the extension of sporting facilities on the grounds that young girls playing netball would cause a nuisance with the noise made while playing. In the light of the desire to promote sports to improve the health of the nation, it would be regrettable if exceptions could not be made to sporting facilities along the same lines as the exceptions made for them in regard to lighting.
	To return to the subject of fly-tipping, the number of incidents dealt with by the Environment Agency increased from 3,055 in 2000 to 5,399 in 2004, and yet the number of prosecutions increased to only 254 from 221. The countryside needs this Bill to deal effectively with the problem, and I look forward to seeing its successful passage through your Lordships' House.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool gave the Bill a terrific welcome, particularly in the very difficult area in which he has to carry on his work. But I believe that no government ever commit suicide. If the polls were suddenly to swing against the present Government, I think that we could face the Bill being brought back to Parliament immediately after the Easter Recess. In that case, it would be important to realise that, in fact, the Bill is not matched by the necessary funding.
	It is important that we put down a number of markers where major amendments will be required, and I want to deal with just three of them: the question of lighting nuisance; stray dogs; and some form of vehicle registration.
	The great word in agriculture today is "diversification". In particular, one must think of people who grow cyclamen, cut flowers and pot plants. In order to bring these plants on at the right time, it is necessary to lengthen the daylight hours by artificial lighting. Equally, in order to get these things to the market on time, it is necessary to load under arc lights at night. We will need an assurance—I am glad that my noble friend has mentioned this—that these points will be covered in the Bill.
	I am glad that we have discussed the question of hardworking communities whose only chance of enjoying games is often in the evening hours when it is necessary to have floodlighting. For football, tennis, even cricket, you need to extend the daylight hours. That is important for many in this country.
	As for stray dogs, I was concerned about the failure of the Government to give an adequate answer to the Kennel Club. The police will be relieved from their duty of looking after stray dogs. If you lose a dog now you get in touch with the police. They will tell you that it has been run over or, much more often, the dog will have gone off hunting or, more likely, gone looking for a bitch. If it is found it is handed over to the police. They will contact the owner if the dog is wearing a collar. If the collar is missing, the owner can inquire at the local police station whether a dog has been handed in.
	In no way can this duty be taken over by the local authorities. They will not have a 24-hour service. You cannot work from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on an issue of animal welfare. I am so glad that my noble friend made this point. It is essential that stray dogs should be handled by the police and not by the local authorities.
	I am also concerned about the business of repairing your own car on the road. There are a lot of us who do not know what goes on under the bonnet of any motor car. As I understand it now, it would be an offence for the local handyman to come on to your forecourt or the road in front of your house in order to repair your car.
	We seem to be getting into a muddle over who actually owns a car. The original owner retains the fiscal responsibility for a vehicle unless they can demonstrate that they have notified the DVLA of the transfer of ownership. But in a recent case highlighted by the Daily Mail the new owners had failed to register the transfer of ownership, so the original owner was held responsible for a fine, although he had not committed any wrong.
	There is a lot of work to be done on the Bill. If it is to make further progress, I hope that it will be taken on the Floor of the House and not in one of the committees upstairs.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I would like to approach the Bill from the rural perspective and I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner.
	In the past, litter and fly-tipping have all too often been seen as urban problems. I am keenly aware from my past experience that the regeneration of deprived urban neighbourhoods often has to start with a general clean-up, in order to create that sense of pride in the area you live in, to counteract the despondency and civic apathy that all too often exists when an area has taken on the appearance of an unofficial dump.
	However, fly-tipping has now reached epidemic proportions throughout our islands and most recently very noticeably in our countryside. Some of us have been quoting figures; my favourite one is that the local authority records seem to indicate that there are now 75,000 incidents of fly-tipping per month—that is, one incident every 35 seconds. Not all local authorities keep records and certainly not all incidents are reported. For instance, most farmers near me have been affected by fly-tipping in recent years and often they just clear up the mess and do not report it.
	Nowadays, it is not only cookers, fridges, beds, mattresses and rubble that get dumped. There might be so-called commercial reasons for dumping such large items, or there might be misunderstandings, following the landfill tax, about what can be disposed of free of charge at the local tip. But what I cannot understand is that now black bags are being thrown out of cars, splitting and spreading their household detritus all over the countryside. Is it not cheaper and less trouble to wait for the weekly free domestic collection than it is to drive out into the countryside and throw it away? Or maybe there are some councils which limit the amount of waste they will accept?
	In the same way as urban civic pride starts with a clean neighbourhood, this is doubly so of our precious countryside. So I genuinely support the Bill. I am glad that littering and fly-tipping will be treated as serious crimes; that dumped cars are going to be speedily removed; and that initiatives such as "Flycatcher" are going to make it more difficult to pollute our countryside.
	Actually, policing the pollution of our countryside by litter and fly-tipping is not such an insurmountable task as it would at first appear. In my experience, in the same way as there are favourite places locally to have a picnic, so there seem to be favourite places to get rid of old bedsteads or whatever. For farmers whose gateways, footpaths and bridleways are thus continually desecrated, it is extremely disheartening. As an aside, most farmers cannot take much more disheartening at the moment.
	This leads me on to the one point of opposition I have to the Bill. As has already been mentioned, in Clause 20 material changes appear to be being made to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It seems to be the Government's intention that litter authorities should be able to serve litter-clearing notices on owners and occupiers of land without them having the defence that the material was fly-tipped. Has the Bill been rural-proofed? As far as the countryside is concerned, this is wrong. Is fly-tipping the fault of the farmer?
	The Bill goes on to provide that in the litter-clearing notice the litter authority may specify steps to be taken to prevent future defacement. I understand that those steps will usually involve measures to keep people off the land in question—fencing and so on—again at the expense, in the countryside, of the farmer. The message seems to be that the farmer is at fault for allowing people on to his land.
	I put it to noble Lords that fly-tipping is a problem for society and is indeed exacerbated by fiscal policies, policies on landfill and even local waste collection policies, however otherwise appropriate they might be. I also put it to noble Lords that all too often the sites that get littered are those to which the public has easy access; for example, the start of bridleways, footpaths and byways open to all traffic. They cannot, and should not, be made alien to the public. Thus while elsewhere the Government rightly try to encourage access to the countryside, here they seem to be taking a different view, or at least wiping their hands of the consequences.
	As has already been pointed out, Clause 20 differs from Clause 50, which deals with controlled waste. In that clause, there is a much more sensible process whereby an occupier can appeal the notice if he neither deposited nor knowingly caused nor knowingly permitted the deposit of the waste. That would seem to be an entirely reasonable defence, which should also apply to Clause 20.
	Politically, as far as the countryside is concerned—I recognise that there may be a different set of circumstances in towns—I think Clause 20 is a blunder. If the Government wish farmers to be entirely hostile to the visiting public, then by all means make them the public's pooper-scoopers free of charge to the public purse. I think that would be a huge mistake.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, last weekend at home in Bradford I read the local newspaper, the Telegraph & Argus, as I always do. On Friday, the front-page story concerned a young woman who was fined £100 for throwing a cigarette end from her car window. She was waxing most indignant about the unfairness of it all and about people going around spying and making accusations. Presumably, she meant the people who reported her for throwing a cigarette end on to the road. I confess I gave three cheers.
	Like, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I am one of those people who picks up litter, follows people with it and gives it back to them. I have long felt frustrated and angry about drivers who speed along littering the road with impunity. I have long wished it possible to pick up their empty cans and other detritus and put it on their doorsteps. So, as your Lordships might imagine, I can become positively incandescent on the subject of dog dirt in public places. My embarrassed family believes that it is a miracle that I have not been dotted by someone by now.
	I welcome the Bill. I am grateful for the briefing material that I have been sent by many organisations, not least the LGA and London Transport. Possibly the most intriguing material was from Wrigley, the chewing gum company. It has joined this debate with its welcome recognition of the responsibility it bears over the issue of gum litter. It is interesting that Wrigley is busy trying to invent a biodegradable gum, which will certainly help. Perhaps it could also try to find edible wrappers. It costs tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to clean up chewing gum. If one looks at Leicester Square, for example, there is a permanent reminder of all the gum that has been discarded there over the years. The paving stones are still stained after the gum has been removed.
	In its ten parts, the Bill covers a wide range of issues and is the result of two years of consultation and work with the Local Government Association and others. That means that it has the support of the cross-party local government family. Many of its objectives arise out of the everyday challenges that local councils, local police forces and local communities face in creating the safe, clean and green neighbourhoods that residents and businesses want, as mentioned by the Minister.
	As essentially a city dweller in Bradford and London, I should like to comment on those parts of the Bill of concern to me. It is a pleasure to speak to a Bill which combines the support of city and rural dwellers. I see the Bill as part of a process which the Government began some time ago with legislation as early as 1998. In the past few years I have spoken in your Lordships' House on such issues as anti-social behaviour orders, graffiti and clean streets. In other words, this is part of a continuum of legislation and activity which says that people must learn to behave in a considerate fashion towards their neighbours and their communities, and that if they do not do so there will be consequences.
	The legislation builds on some of the pioneering work undertaken by local authorities. Other noble Lords have mentioned it. For example, I like the way in which Edinburgh has targeted fast-food restaurants and takeaway shops. Shops allowing discarded boxes and wrappers to build up outside their premises are fined as well as the customers who throw down their rubbish.
	I give another example. The local newspaper in Oldham is joining forces with the council in its fight against graffiti. It is publishing a series of photographs of graffiti taken around the town in a bid to find the culprits. Those who are experts on graffiti will know that graffiti often have signatures or tags. Readers are urged to study the photographs and to name and shame those responsible. I wish them well.
	In your Lordships' House, I have praised previously the work undertaken in this field by my London home borough of Camden. I was attracted by its imaginative approach to fly-posting, which is a huge and unsightly problem for the borough. Last week it successfully used its ASBO powers for the second time and served ASBOs on some of the employees of one of the largest fly-posting companies in the UK called, appropriately in my view, Diabolical Liberties. Camden Town's press release states:
	"Diabolical Liberties has been engaged in illegal flyposting in Camden for the last eight years. During this time, Camden Council has gathered considerable evidence against the company, including from other organisations that work with them. In addition, a number of local authorities have provided Camden with evidence of Diabolical Liberties illegal flyposting activities, including Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Cardiff, Nottingham and also Nottingham Police".
	I quote that as a wonderful example of the co-ordination and co-operation across local authorities which needs to take place.
	Camden's approach follows its successful action against Sony Music Entertainment UK in June of last year when that company agreed to cease fly-posting in England and Wales. That work has resulted in a 95 per cent reduction in the amount of fly-posting in the borough and has created a model demonstrating how innovative use of legislation can have beneficial results for the local authority.
	All those initiatives illustrate how, through the employment of imaginative and innovative methods, local authorities can improve local environmental quality and create a pleasant and safer place in which to live. This work will be enhanced further by the use of the powers available in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. Local authorities will be able to develop further partnerships and enforcement work to create measurable improvements in local environmental quality.
	I was particularly pleased to learn that the LGA is working with the retail sector on the problems caused by shopping trolleys, noise and lighting and has made joint recommendations on the wording of the guidance which may follow the Bill.
	In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and recognise that it is designed to clarify responsibilities and help councils to deal with environmental crime more effectively. I hope that the Bill will succeed in its passage through your Lordships' House.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Many varied and different points have been made this evening. Noble Lords have spoken of their enthusiasm for different parts of the Bill. In particular, I was struck by the right reverend Prelate's description of community and, indeed, individual initiatives that make up the "dynamos"—I think he called them—of what makes communities tick in a positive way. I join him in paying tribute to Liverpool City Council, which has taken so many good initiatives to try to help its communities.
	I would introduce only one slightly negative note. Most of the Bill would be unnecessary if during the passage of the Local Government Bill in 2000 the Government had listened to the wise words of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and given councils the general power of competence to carry out a vast swathe of these things in a way that suited their own locality and not in a "one size fits all" kind of way.
	I accept that the LGA supports the Bill. It does because it is used to, through Conservative and now Labour Governments, accepting whatever crumbs fall from the Government's table in terms of additional powers. But at some stage in the future it will be time for local government truly to have the power to act as it thinks fit within its neighbourhoods. In that way citizens would get a much better deal. But we know that this Government are reluctant in the extreme to give local authorities any such wide powers. So I suppose that this evening I must join others in being grateful for the legislation. I can genuinely say to the Minister that I welcome the new powers that the Bill gives to parish councils.
	Given those reservations, I support the outcomes that the Bill aims to achieve. I was slightly surprised that the Conservatives opposed the Bill at Second Reading in the Commons. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will explain why they did so.
	One of the most interesting parts of the Bill is that which deals with vehicles. In my time as a local councillor, to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred, some of the most difficult cases to solve and the thing that inflamed local neighbour disputes the most was the nuisance produced by thoughtless people or the deliberate misuse of public space by people with their vehicles. Some of those neighbour disputes were very violent and difficult. The powers in the Bill will do much to diffuse that kind of situation.
	Part 3 of the Bill deals with litter and refuse. Do the Government consider that fixed penalty notices in every case are the best way of dealing with this problem? I believe that in many instances a community order would be a better way of dealing with such an offence. I think that community orders would give greater scope for individual reflection on why the environment is important and how thoughtless and deliberate actions can damage it.
	On chewing gum, I, too, received the briefing from Wrigley's. I was very pleased to see that innovation may well be the way to solve this problem. The costs of gum removal seem to be ridiculously high. I believe that unless the industry can innovate quickly to make gum biodegradable—hesitant as I am, and this is a purely personal point of view and not a party one—a chewing gum tax would be the only way forward. I hope that the industry makes very rapid progress in developing its biodegradable chewing gum.
	I am also happy to see that open air littering will cover litter on beaches. Currently, local authorities do not have the power to enforce the clearing of litter from beaches in private ownership—even when the private owner profits considerably from renting out two or three of his fields for car parking, often for as much as £5 to £10 a day. He takes plenty of money off the public, but then fails to clear the space where they have been. He is not in the business of forcing the public to take their litter home. The Bill provides the powers to ensure that the public do not litter that beach space and if they do—if the rules have not been enforced—then the owner should come under the power of the local authority, enabling it to make sure that the beach is cleaned up.
	In saying all of that, I must pay tribute to the Marine Conservation Society. It has been absolutely fantastic in organising beach clean-ups and raising public awareness of the difficulties of beach and marine pollution, and the damage that it can do—not only visually, but also to wildlife.
	I will not add anything to what noble Lords have said about graffiti, other than to welcome the powers that local councils will get. Fly-posting, however—I am speaking from the Front Bench but I emphasise again that this is my personal view, which I must express—is one of the means that many young people have to communicate their community's events. That is not entirely to defend the nuisance it causes, and I am glad to say that most young people, being so much better than us at using the Internet, are finding other ways to post important information to each other. Indeed, they are using mobile telephone texting.
	Some countries, however, have a far more generous provision of municipal notice boards, on which people can put notices about their own events. I am not referring to the one or two foot square parish notice boards. In towns and urban areas there is a need for communal notice board space for people who currently fly-post. I hope that some of the best practice in other European countries, providing both fixed notice boards and the sort that can be wheeled away, is something that local councils and the Government could have a think about.
	I agree entirely with the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Grantchester, that there seems to be a strange contradiction about fly-tipping. I am sure the Minister, having heard what they both said, will clarify that point for us.
	I pay tribute to my colleague in another place, Sue Doughty, who tried her very best to introduce something into this Bill about waste minimisation and packaging. Her amendments were, of course, resisted by both the Government and the Conservatives. Nevertheless, she made some very important points and I hope that the Government will return to the issue of packaging and waste minimisation.
	On dogs, several noble Lords have mentioned the issue of funding this evening. Adequate funding for all of this is a theme that runs through almost every contribution. I would welcome the Minister's comments on what sort of funding level local authorities can expect for taking on the extra responsibility for stray dogs. Even if they are imaginative in the way that they police it, and have dog wardens who double up doing other things, it will still be quite an expensive provision for them to put in place.
	Perhaps one of the most disappointing parts of the Bill is Part 8, on architecture and the built environment. The Minister said that he welcomed it, but it merely shifts around quangos and will do nothing to enhance the quality of the built environment. It is perhaps the part most lacking in ambition but which offered the most opportunity for imaginative improvement.
	The role of architecture and the built environment is still massively undervalued by the Government, despite the presence on their Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, who can offer them unparalleled advice, as he did in his report. Much of his report's recommendations on the quality of the built environment have still not been implemented, which is deeply to be regretted.
	Insects are dealt with in Part 9, entitled "Miscellaneous". I hope that the Minister can reassure me on a very important issue that Buglife, a conservation charity dedicated to invertebrates, raised in the other place. It felt that the Bill's provisions on insects might encourage excessive pesticide use in rural areas, where it was not appropriate and might threaten biodiversity. The charity has been in correspondence with Alun Michael, whose officials suggested that the Government might table an amendment to deal with the issue. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.
	I think that we have heard all sides of the argument on lighting. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that in many cases it was a waste of energy. My bête noire is security lighting mounted by individuals on pavements that already have street lights; it shines in your eyes and blinds you as you walk innocently along. Such lights enhance the safety of nobody other than the individuals who erect them. It is a fairly selfish move in community terms.
	However, I agree that sport lighting is important. I cannot imagine any towns with keen football clubs having to suffer the removal of lighting that enables their teams and young players to practise in the evening. That sort of thought is insupportable. Many other sports, such as tennis, are equally important, especially at a time when the Government talk about the importance of physical activity in counteracting all sorts of conditions, including obesity.
	The outcomes envisaged in the Bill are certainly to be welcomed. I hope that the Bill's detailed way of imposing on local authorities requirements about how to arrive at those outcomes will not be our eventual means of enabling them to act. In the mean time, I welcome the Bill.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I had high hopes for the Bill. I still have high hopes, but they rest on the interpretations and commitments that the Minister will give us in the course of its process. So we give the Bill a reserved welcome.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked why my colleagues in another place tabled a reasoned amendment. They recognised clearly that the Bill needed improvement; it was one way of raising the issue on the Floor of the House.
	I propose to tackle the Bill subject by subject and then to look at certain themes. Before I do, I wish to say what a good debate we have had. We have had contributions from more urban-based noble Lords and from those of us who have to look after the countryside—the practical keepers—and who will be affected by the Bill.
	I was particularly grateful for the right reverend Prelate's contribution. When he talked about regeneration, it reminded me, sadly, of when we pulled down a whole wodge of terraced houses in Leicester. It broke up the community because they were moved away, and families were split. There was an actual, practical effect on local communities, and one cannot easily rebuild something that has been destroyed in that way. It is a real issue which we need to bear in mind and, if we can, try to prevent from happening again, although that is not within the Bill's remit.
	My noble friend Lord Kimball highlighted three issues: lighting and horticulture, which I shall touch on later; stray dogs, which is common to all of us; and vehicle registration, which I look at in a slightly different way. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his excellent and understanding interpretation of the problems that those of us who have land, particularly in rural areas, are now faced with on a daily basis.
	The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, highlighted the difficulties in the way the Bill has been constructed with regard to the wording in Clause 20 and Clause 50. They clearly do not sit happily together, and I hope the Minister will touch on that.
	My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith highlighted the scale of the problems we face. I will not quote the figures he included in his speech, but we are talking about tonnes and tonnes of rubbish, at huge cost. The theme that has emerged from all the speakers so far has been: who will bear the cost? Will there be enough money? The Government, rightly, in their view, have said it is the local government's responsibility. I declare an interest here, as my brother is a county councillor and also a parish councillor. At the end of the day, if the Government pass down those responsibilities, they must ensure that adequate funding is given to local councils. I have grave doubts that, under these circumstances, the Government would give sufficient funds.
	Gating orders are already being used by many councils, as we heard earlier. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, they could also close rights of way that are being used for the pursuit of crime or serious public nuisance. My honourable friend Anne McIntosh raised this issue in an amendment on the question of gating measures. I hope that is something we shall pursue again in Committee.
	The Bill will allow a significant expansion in the number of highways that can be shut off. Or will it? Special, trunk, strategic and classified roads will be exempt, as will roads and "highways of such other description" as the Secretary of State may prescribe. Will the Minister tell me what other road types are imagined being closed, other than those I have mentioned? Perhaps it is just rights of way that will be left on the list of highways eligible for closure. It is not clear in the Bill as it stands.
	In Part 2, the prohibition of vehicle sales from the public road is obviously welcomed, and is long overdue. However, the Bill relates only to the road. Will it cover sales from strips of grass between roads and on the pavements to be found in many of our older towns, particularly spa towns? Will it also cover the sales in villages and rural areas where a householder lines up vehicles on the grass verge outside his house, and the parish council then has a fight over the next two or three years to get that verge back into proper order?
	Litter-clearing notices are to be doled out wherever a principal litter authority is satisfied that the land concerned is defaced by litter or refuse,
	"so as to be detrimental to the amenity of the locality".
	As is often the case with such Bills, I am struck by the lack of a built-in appeals system that would allow everyone who is served with a notice a fair hearing. Notices will not apparently have room for instructions on how to appeal, even though an appeal must be made within 21 days of the notice being served. Will the Minister reassure me on that? The grounds on which an appeal may be made require a fair bit of work, and 21 days might not be long enough if one has to find out how one goes about appealing in the first place? That is not clearly laid out in the Bill.
	From litter, the Bill moves on to waste and site waste management plans. The relevant clauses are obviously targeted at the building industry generally. Like other Members, I welcome them. I welcome anything that can reduce the clutter that so often seems to surround sites, especially those devoted to renovation rather than to new-build.
	Apparently, however, not all councils will be constrained by the same terms. Or is it the case that not all building projects will be bound by the same rules? It appears that the Secretary of State will be able to vary the uses to which certain local authorities put the fines for breaches of waste management plans. Is that associated with the demolition plans for northern England? Will the Minister explain the thinking behind Clause 54(5)?
	I welcome the controls on noise pollution, but how will they be utilised to encompass noise from certain vehicles with loud, booming sound systems? In hot weather in particular—we are told that it will be hotter more often—entire streets of slumbering citizens, minding their own business, are awoken by such mobile cacophonies.
	While on the subject of being awoken by noise at night, I am amazed that the Bill has nothing to say on night flying. I come from the East Midlands, which is seeing an increased level of night flying and—it is welcomed by some—an increased number of freight aircraft. Unlike Heathrow and Gatwick, East Midlands Airport neither has, nor has sought, derogation. If the Government's air transport plans are to continue to encourage more air freight in the East Midlands, will the Minister explain why our airport is not considered in the same way as Heathrow and Gatwick?
	I turn to the question of light nuisance. We too would like the Minister to explain why the Bill has not excluded horticulture from the controls on the use of light. As my noble friend Lord Kimball clearly said, the horticulture industry is being encouraged to extend its season to increase the production of British food, which we want to see. I suspect that it would be caught by the Bill as it stands. Will the Minister respond to that?
	The Bill refers throughout to fixed penalties, which may be used to avoid to a court case. The suggested tariffs vary from £75 to £300 according to the offence. However, local authorities will have the power to accept less and the right to use the fines in a prescribed manner over a given period. As usual, we shall not know the detail until the inevitable regulations appear. The Secretary of State will have the right to annex unspent receipts at the end of a period. Should that be so? The Local Government Association certainly wishes to see those moneys retained for the completion of more enforcement work. I wonder how many people will be committing offences under this legislation. How many will be caught? What proportion of those will opt for a fixed penalty? Has any research been done by the Government on their expectations within this section?
	I cannot resume my place without registering my disagreement with the little section removing 24-hour police protection from stray dogs, to which other noble Lords have referred. Some dogs are left to roam free daily. They are accustomed to it. Many others, however, stray by mishap—as the result of car accidents, burglaries or abandonment. It is not their fault. In replacing the role that the police have, will the Minister consider having some place to which it would be common for all members of the public to be able to take stray dogs? The Bill clearly gives flexibility in this field, but there is then a worry about knowing which authority does what, and which system they are operating. It is a great mistake, within the Bill, to remove the current coverage without agreeing a recognised system to replace it.
	I have looked closely at the ministerial Written Statement given earlier today in another place. I again wish to record my dismay that it is in the form of a Written Statement, rather than an oral Statement that we can discuss. The Minister, Alun Michael, said in his comments:
	"In addition, guidance"—
	guidance—
	"will be issued explaining what local authorities will need to do to comply with this requirement. The issues the guidance is expected to cover include"—
	first—
	"how local authorities can ensure that facilities of a suitable standard are in place to take stray dogs at any time. These could be provided by local authorities themselves".
	However, some local authorities:
	"may prefer to contract the service out to local dog boarding kennels, animal welfare organisations, the police or veterinary practices".
	Secondly, that these arrangements will need to be set in place:
	"to inform anyone who finds a stray dog where to take it. As with other local authority responsibilities, such as social welfare or child care, we would expect good arrangements with the local police to assist the public in making contact with the right person when a problem is reported".
	That seems to be putting the cart the wrong way round. Will the Minister clarify it for us tonight? The Written Statement does not really answer the many queries raised when the Bill was debated in another place.
	Finally, the Minister will not be surprised if I express my concerns, together with those of other noble Lords, regarding Clauses 20 and 50. I will not repeat what has already been said. I should declare my interest as a land owner who has been troubled with dumping; with illegal fly-tipping and burnt-out cars. It is ridiculous that our lane, which goes down to a beauty spot, is regularly used by youngsters who go up and down the lane to burn out cars. If those cars are left burnt-out on the roadside, the local authority has to remove them at its own cost. If, on the other hand, the people committing the offence open the field-gate, push the car into a field and do exactly the same thing, that land-owner has the cost of removing that vehicle. I would have thought that the Bill would have addressed that inconsistency, but it does not. Certainly, with the difference in wording between Clause 20 and Clause 50, this is something important to which we will obviously return in Committee.
	The dumping of waste has become a business. Given the increasing charges incurred in landfill, I believe that the problem is set to get worse. The Government have reflected on the enormity of the issue, but I return to the comments made by many other noble Lords. This matter goes back to the costs and who is going to bear them. That must be acknowledged now because if this Bill does not progress any further because of a general election, the onus is on the Minister to try to respond tonight to some of the questions which definitely need clarification.
	Just before she finished, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, turned to the very important question of what I would call "good" bugs. Our wildlife out there needs bugs. I, too, have been lobbied on this matter. While some insects need to be controlled around sewage works and so forth, a balance must be struck. Unless we are careful, I suspect that the provisions on this issue may upset that balance.
	I end by giving this Bill a reserved welcome because, as other noble Lords have explained very clearly, some real concerns need to be addressed. With those words, I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a very constructive debate. By and large, all sides of the House and all parts of the country have welcomed these measures. It would be accurate to say that the welcome has been less warm from the Tory Front Bench than from elsewhere. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that she gives the Bill a "reserved welcome", while the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in not quite welcoming the Bill, approached it by saying that its provisions in certain respects should go considerably further. Yes, but I do not think that the noble Lord objected to many of our proposals. Most people recognise that the issues which the legislation attempts to address—which it does quite effectively—are those which are of great concern to people living both in our countryside and in our towns, and ones which our local authorities and other enforcement agencies either do not have the powers fully to address or need to have those powers properly clarified.
	Much of the criticism of the Bill concerned funding. Noble Lords know that it is rare for any legislation to attach funding to it, and it is important to recognise that, with limited exceptions, the Bill provides for powers rather than duties. It is therefore difficult to know how local authorities are going to interpret those powers and duties and what priority they will give them.
	As my noble friend Lord Grantchester pointed out, local authorities can generate new income streams in a number of areas. Fixed penalty notices and various elements of cost recovery are built into the Bill. In addition it is important to recognise that funding is available from existing sources, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I cite, for example, neighbourhood renewal grants, the Police Community Support Officers Fund—to which the noble Lord favourably referred—the second generation of local public service agreements, and the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund. All those can be drawn on to fund some of the activities covered by the Bill. So while one does not wish in any sense to pre-empt either future public spending settlements or the annual discussions with local authorities on their funding, there is already scope for significant resources to be made available to local authorities and more built into the Bill. Therefore I do not think that resources will be a constraint.
	Two or three new duties are provided where it is clear that some specific allocation of funds could be said to be appropriate. One duty relates to addressing the issue of stray dogs, to which I will return in substance in a moment. However, it is clear from the Bill that the additional costs involved would be funded by a transfer from police budgets to local authority budgets. The other two duties, one relating to artificial lighting and insect control and the other to assessing the scale of the graffiti problem, would involve minimal additional costs. They would not generate significant new costs as the result of a clear new duty being imposed on local authorities. As I have said, the vast majority of these provisions will be covered by funding already available to local authorities through various funds and through their normal funding.
	Some noble Lords seem to think that the chewing gum measure constitutes an additional burden. I believe that the position of Westminster City Council vis-à-vis chewing gum has been slightly misrepresented. That council indeed incurs great cost in relation to chewing gum, and its removal is an expensive business. However, the point of the Bill is not to impose that cost but to clarify the fact that chewing gum when thrown away is litter. That needs to be clarified following ambiguity in previous enactments in that regard and will be followed up by codes of practice to make the matter absolutely clear. The removal of chewing gum is not of itself an additional cost in the way that has been suggested. Indeed, the LGA very much supported the clarification.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked whether additional costs would be incurred through people being employed by local authorities to enforce fixed penalty notices and other new powers. Clearly, local authorities already enforce fixed penalty notices in some areas for litter, graffiti and fly-posting. The Bill gives them greater flexibility in using those fixed penalty notices. They will decide who they designate to carry out that work. Many councils already employ litter wardens and other wardens to carry out that work and I am sure that will continue. There will be some new income streams to help cover that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked a number of questions—some of which were repeated by others—with regard to lighting. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, also mentioned lighting, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, claimed that there were too many exemptions with regard to statutory nuisance, including artificial lighting. I understood that he was complaining about street lights situated six miles from his back window. However, I am sure that such situations arise. It is important that as regards highways bad lighting of any kind is dealt with through good practice in preference to further regulation. However, intrusive lighting is dealt with in the Bill.
	The lighting exemptions relating to sporting facilities and events have been welcomed. There is no complete exemption in relation to horticulture because the general view is that best horticultural practice results in the lighting for most horticultural activities not of itself constituting a nuisance. It is recognised that the horticultural industry needs additional lighting. It is important that we recognise that. However, that should not result in an open season for horticulture or other near industrial activities to indulge in the kind of lighting which would fall foul of the statutory nuisance provisions. As I say, there is no complete exemption with regard to horticulture.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others queried the vehicle provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the need to ensure that two vehicles which are for sale are parked on different roads; that is, parking one round the corner. A degree of interpretation may be needed on that provision.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to repairing cars on the street. I believe that the offence would be restricted to repairs carried out over a period of 72 hours. I hope that that would be sufficient time to repair the noble Lord's car. If that is not the case, I suggest that he takes it to a place with more facilities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others discussed the extent to which gating orders could be used. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, returned to that matter, as did others. Clarification will be issued on the matter as the gating order in the Explanatory Notes relates to alleyways. The problem may extend beyond alleyways, but access to rights of way during periods when those premises are normally used as rights of way will not be allowed to be restricted. That could apply to other highways. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, read out the list of strategic exemptions. Clearly, strategic highways and main roads would not be covered, but one can think of many cul-de-sacs, suburban and urban roads, and maybe some country lanes, where there is a possibility of crime and environmental damage being caused, which could be restricted by a gating order. It is not restricted to alleyways and byways; it includes some of the more substantial highways as well.
	I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his reference to how things are being dealt with in that city. He said how important it is that we see this as part of the translation from neighbourhood—which is in a sense a passive term—into community. We recognise the need to ensure that local authorities attract and retain people in those areas, along with others from the community and from voluntary organisations, to help to deliver what we are trying to do by backing it up with regulatory action in the form of this Bill. At the end of the day, all the provisions are about people and the way in which people live. We can go over the minutiae of the regulations, but they must go into a cultural and a social environment where there is support for such provisions and changes of behaviour.
	Noble Lords throughout the Chamber have recognised fly-tipping as one of the biggest problems facing us. There has been a substantial increase in the penalties faced by fly-tippers—from a maximum of £20,000 to a maximum of £50,000. Clearly, the main target for the fly-tipping provisions is to stop and deter the fly-tipping of the quasi-criminal kind that exists in urban areas and country lanes and farmland, and which has defaced many neighbourhoods.
	There is some degree of confusion about fly-tipping, which my noble friend Lord Grantchester referred to, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The allegation is that there is a contradiction between Clause 20 and Clause 50, and I shall clarify that. Clause 20 deals with litter and refuse, and it is intended to allow councils to deal with the accumulation of litter. For example, in the gardens of a number of urban areas where there is an empty house, a derelict garden is used to dump substantial amounts of litter. That becomes cumulative when there is not an occupier of those premises. Whereas the present provisions can require the occupier to deal with it, they cannot require an absentee owner to deal with it. That is what we have changed in this clause.
	That is dealing with litter and refuse. Clause 20 is not intended to deal with controlled waste, which is primarily the issue in relation to fly-tipping. Clause 20 should not be used in relation to fly-tipping on agricultural land, for example. The defence in Clause 50 would not be appropriate for accumulations of rubbish, if there is a separate defence in Clause 20, if action is unfair or unduly oppressive. There is a distinction between the two clauses rather than a contradiction. I hope that clarifies the situation somewhat.
	The question of fly-tipping more generally requires action not only by local authorities, which is covered by Clause 20. Rubbish-tipping is covered by Clause 20, and that is a local authority responsibility, whereas fly-tipping, and the powers involved, is largely an Environment Agency responsibility.
	My noble friend Lady Thornton referred to local authorities already taking initiatives in dealing with litter and environmental damage. It is clear that the LGA is encouraging such innovation and creativity and that the use of ASBOs in certain circumstances has already benefited local authorities and is delivering results. With this Bill, we want to give authorities greater and more flexible resources and powers to make sure that they can continue to tackle the problems.
	I return to fly-tipping for a moment in relation to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who also thought that there was a contradiction in the clauses. Enforcement is and will become increasingly possible. Deterrents can become increasingly effective. I agree with him that many sites can be identified and that their policing can be more systematic, particularly sites substantially close to the road in the open countryside, where there are significant problems. It is important that the penalties involved are sufficient as a deterrent, and the maximum penalties to be enacted in the Bill should go some considerable way towards ensuring that.
	Dogs were mentioned by several speakers. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and others object to the transfer of the powers between the police and local authorities. At the moment, there is confusion. Local authorities and police both have powers and responsibilities on the issue, and both have provisions and facilities. The suggestion that is acceptable to the police and local authorities, and the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, is that the responsibility should be clearly with the local authorities to deal with stray dogs on a 24-hour basis.
	The duty does not have to be changed; in a sense, it is already there in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, there will be a requirement for local authorities to take on what has hitherto been seen as the responsibility of the police to ensure 24-hour coverage. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the statement by my right honourable friend Alun Michael that guidance to carry out the responsibilities would ensure that the facilities were there for a suitable standard of premises to take stray dogs at any time of day or night.
	Those facilities may be provided directly by the local authorities or subcontracted, but it is the duty of the local authority to deal with that. In some cases, it might be subcontracted to the police, but it is primarily the local authority's responsibility. That needs to be clear to the public, who would normally now go to the police station to look for their dogs, if they went anywhere. Police stations are not always open 24 hours a day, particularly in rural areas, so that service is not always there at present. It is important that we establish that someone takes that central responsibility. We propose that it be the local authorities. The Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and the Kennel Club have been reassured by the statement to which the noble Baroness referred and by the information that we gave them behind it.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I do not know whether I am stopping the Minister before he gets there, but the important query that I raised was about how members of the general public would know which authority deals with their problem, and in what way. In other words, whom do they contact?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the guidance, there will be a responsibility on the local authorities to make sure that information—a telephone number or address—is provided on where inquiries about a stray dog can be directed, whether it is a nuisance stray dog or their own lost dog. In a sense, that will replace what people have regarded as the responsibility of the police. It is a bit of a diversion for the police, so they are happy for the local authority to take the prime responsibility. However, there will be some facilities at police stations where that is most appropriate, and the local authority would subcontract that in those circumstances. There is a responsibility on the local authority arising from the clause, and we will issue guidance to the effect that it informs the public of where to go and whom to contact.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in addition to the number of questions already covered, welcomed the additional powers for parish councils, which are important. She also mentioned, for the first time, the engagement of Wrigley's in the chewing gum issue. That is an important development, although it is not directly covered by the Bill. We recognise that chewing gum is a big problem. She was the only person to refer to beach litter, which is a problem that will in part be covered by the Bill.
	The noble Baroness was slightly less enthusiastic about some of the fly-posting provisions. Her noble friend Lord Greaves wished to know what was political and what was not. I always thought that the noble Lord regarded the whole of life as being political. The term will be fairly widely drawn. I suspect that the circumstances that he talked about regarding campaigns on planning decisions might be considered political. The Bill is addressed more to the commercial activities of unwanted fly-posting and flyers that will be subject to sanction.
	The noble Baroness and others raised the issue of insects as a nuisance. A nuisance is something caused by an activity, not by the natural development of wildlife in the countryside. The provision is directed primarily at what has been a serious problem of mosquitoes arising at sewage works and similar facilities that were deemed in a recent court case not to be a nuisance, whereas the smell and odour were a nuisance. The insects were as big a problem for the local community, but they were deemed not to be a nuisance. We have therefore extended the provisions in that direction. It is not intended to be a threat to biodiversity in the normal sense.
	The noble Baroness also asked whether fixed penalty notices were the most appropriate for environmental offences. They were not in all circumstances. Community services orders could still be used in certain circumstances, including if the offender chose not to accept a fixed penalty notice and was instead prosecuted by the council. That is always an option in those circumstances, as it is with current fixed penalty notices. They would not necessarily be appropriate for all people in all circumstances, but an extension of their use is an additional flexibility available to local authorities.
	Some serious questions have been raised about what is not in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, effectively wanted it to be an energy control Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, wanted it to be about waste minimisation. They are highly desirable issues but they are not in the Bill, which deals with environmental offences in the local context. It would be a mistake, however long we have in subsequent stages, to extend it as far as those remarks suggest, not that I do not agree with the objectives proposed by the noble Lord and noble Baroness.
	There was some criticism of the provisions on CABE with regard to the issue of architectural building. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was concerned about its ability to charge for advice that had not been asked for. We cannot foresee a situation when that would occur. It is hardly a service if one has not asked for it, or agreed to it. It would not be possible, even within the Bill's current terms, to charge for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that all we were doing was changing the institution. In a sense, we are not even doing that. We are changing the status of CABE so that it is clear, which is important. A clear status is important for its relationship with other authorities and with Parliament.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised a number of questions that I have not fully covered. One immediately occurs to me, but I think that I have probably gone on for long enough on most of the points. In relation to vehicle sales on the highway, the pavement would definitely count as part of the highway, but there may be a problem with grass verges where they are not part of the highway. I doubt that large village-type grass verges of the kind described by the noble Baroness would be covered by the provision as it stands.
	The noble Baroness complained that night flying was not included in the Bill. I am afraid that that subject concerns a whole swathe of alternative legislation, which may well need to be addressed by the House at some point, but it is covered by entirely different provisions from those amended and addressed by this Bill.
	I have not covered every point, but I have been speaking for almost 25 minutes, which is probably quite long enough. On the other hand, noble Lords have complained that they have information that the Bill may not follow the normal procedures in the House. I have absolutely no information in that regard, and therefore I hope that we shall have the opportunity to see it through in the normal way. However, if we do not, I commend the Bill to the House more or less as it stands because it makes an important contribution to tackling problems that hundreds of thousands of our citizens face from day to day. Therefore, it would be highly desirable for it to be on the statute book, and I hope to have the House's support, in whatever procedural circumstances, to ensure that that is the case.
	On Question, Bill read a second time.

Stipends (Cessation of Special Payments) Measure

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Stipends (Cessation of Special Payments) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, this is a modest measure. It is neither long nor complex, and it deals with a limited category of payments that had their origins in legislation about Church property that took effect almost 30 years ago. However, it is also a significant measure, both in principle and in practice, for today's and tomorrow's Church. That is because its object is to target more of the very limited funding for the Church's ministry that is available from central Church bodies and direct it to where the need is most. As such, it is a practical application of what is now a developing policy of mutual support between the dioceses.
	The payments covered by the measure total about £3.6 million a year, although some discretionary payments by the Church Commissioners amounting to almost £1 million will be treated in the same way. Thus, the total will be about £4.5 million a year.
	The main group of payments is known as "guaranteed annuities". They had their origins in the fact that, in the past, many individual benefices had their own endowments, such as glebe land, which produced an income for the rector or vicar. Those endowments were pooled by the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976. For example, glebe land was transferred into diocesan ownership. The rector or vicar who was in office at the time continued to receive the same amount by way of income in the form of payments from the Church Commissioners. In fact, there are still a few clergy in that category, although they are now a dwindling band, and nothing in the present measure affects them.
	The result is that the payments really now benefit the dioceses by providing a subsidy for a diocese's total stipend bill rather than providing any specific benefit for individual members of the clergy. Moreover, they benefit the dioceses that had the best endowed parishes in the past—not the ones in the greatest financial need in the present day.
	Given that situation, the measure brings the payments to an end, subject to an option for any rector or vicar who at present receives them to continue doing so until he or she ceases to hold that particular post. The measure goes on to stipulate that the money released will go to assist the dioceses with their stipend costs and will be targeted where there is most need of financial support. A further advantage will be some simplification and streamlining of the payment of stipends.
	It follows that, as the Ecclesiastical Committee pointed out in its report, members of the clergy who at present receive the payments will not be disadvantaged. The Ecclesiastical Committee also pointed out that, so far as the endowment of individual benefices is concerned, the measure did no more than sever a last vestigial link with the past.
	I know that there are some who still regret the passing of the old endowments, but the Ecclesiastical Committee recognised that the real change took place many years ago and retaining the guaranteed annuities could not turn the clock back. In fact, the measure is essentially forward-looking. Its importance lies in the practical good it will do by allowing the money that the central bodies have available to support the Church's ministry to be focused on the areas of greatest need. Because of that, the response to the wide consultation, which took place before the measure was introduced into the General Synod, welcomed the proposals. The measure won overwhelming support in the Synod and, after questioning representatives of the Synod in some detail, the Ecclesiastical Committee was satisfied that it was expedient.
	I therefore commend the measure to your Lordships. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Stipends (Cessation of Special Payments) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I have the honour to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses and therefore saw the measure as it came through. As with anything in the Church of England, there is always a worry about taking the voluntary giving of one person—no matter how long ago—and wanting it to go to one particular place. The Church of England always finds it a bit difficult when we say that we will stick it all in a bucket and give it to the poorest.
	One or two people found it very difficult as it came through the committee, but, as we have heard tonight from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, the measure would not disadvantage any incumbent presently receiving statutory payments under the 1976 measure. It would also remove the need for some time-consuming and expensive administration.
	At present the payments made to incumbents under the 1976 measure are made as a result of historic endowments of particular benefices, and the vestigial link—as we have heard—between the endowments and the benefices concerned will now be broken. The proposed measure will allow the Church to allocate its financial resources where there is the greatest need. Therefore from these Benches we are happy to say that we find the measure expedient.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for presenting the measure. May I say that I am happy with the other two measures that he is about to present and I have nothing further to say on them. I will confine my remarks to this measure.
	The Church of England in organising its own affairs has already voted in its own decision-making bodies by 255 to 22, which seems a hefty majority on any basis. Who are we to question what seems to be internal business for the Church of England? This is a legalised Robin Hood measure, and I well understand that the Church of England wishes to do that.
	I have only one point to put to the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that the Church of England is right in trying to target the money that it has on where it is needed, but I am also certain that there will be people working with and for the Church of England who are looking for legacies, gift aid and large donations attached to gift aid and so forth. I am aware that the mind of the donor is not always based on sending a big cheque to London. In my part of the world, many people would think that that is not the right thing to do.
	Therefore, as a candid friend and not a member of the Church of England, it occurs to me that the Church ought at least to have an eye to the fact that it may be able to get some resources, provided that there is the opportunity for large donations and legacies to be used where the donor wishes. I well understand that, in many cases, the Church will be intimating that donations made for national or international purposes are appreciated and appropriate. However, there will be people who want to give in a local way. It would be useful to know how that will be achieved. Having said that, I am happy to support the measure.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support. I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I can assure her that I too scrutinise these things to make sure that we are respecting history and the wishes of donors in the past. I give her my assurance that no beneficiary will be disadvantaged by this measure.
	I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for his comments. I assure him in the spirit of Robin Hood that any moneys given to parishes will not be affected by this measure. Money given locally will be respected and used locally. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the measure.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to bring this House a measure to contribute to the care of our cathedrals, which must surely be some of the most splendid jewels in the crown of our country's built heritage. Although the measure is complex, and parts of it are highly technical, your Lordships will see that the Ecclesiastical Committee was satisfied that it was expedient. The committee was able to set out its conclusions in a very brief report.
	I am glad to say that I can explain the general object of the measure, and how it seeks to achieve it, quite briefly and without getting involved in the legal complexities. Noble Lords will find the details fully set out in the material from the legislative committee of the General Synod, which is reproduced in the Ecclesiastical Committee report.
	Many of your Lordships will know that for centuries parish churches and their treasures have been safeguarded by the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Because of concerns that that jurisdiction did not extend to cathedrals, the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 set up a comparable system. Under it, a cathedral must obtain consent for significant works to the cathedral itself, for some other works that would affect its setting or the cathedral precinct, and before important articles belonging to the cathedral are disposed of or acquired. Major proposals go to a national body, the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England, for approval. Other proposals are dealt with by the fabric advisory committee for the individual cathedral. The measure also deals with such matters as the cathedral inventory and the responsibilities of the cathedral architect.
	A review commissioned in 1997 by what is now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found that, in general, the system was working effectively. However, the Church had already agreed to carry out its own review of the new controls once they had been in force for a few years. It carried out very wide-ranging consultations, which included the cathedrals, those who hold office in them, Church bodies, professional organisations and heritage bodies, such as English Heritage and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. The review group also invited, and received, submissions from the general public. The review group agreed that the system was working well, but it came up with a number of detailed recommendations for minor changes in the legislation. Again, it consulted widely on its proposals before bringing them to the Synod.
	Just to give your Lordships a flavour of the kind of changes that the review group proposed, and which were then embodied in the measure, I shall mention three examples. One of them extends the controls over cathedral treasures, which already applied to disposals, to any significant work on them that could affect their essential character. Another consists of changes to the detailed procedure for notices when the cathedral applies for approval under the measure.
	A third example relates to the definition of the "precinct" of the cathedral. This is a key concept under the 1990 measure because it is important that the whole complex of the land and buildings of which the cathedral forms part should be looked on as a whole. Here the measure expends the 1990 provisions on how the boundaries of the precinct are to be fixed and allows for them to be changed if, say, the cathedral acquires additional land.
	Your Lordships will see from this that the changes go only to the detail of the 1990 measure and not the principles and objectives which underlie it. The Synod accepted that almost all were completely non-controversial and it passed the measure with not a single contrary vote. In that sense, the measure is a modest one. Nevertheless, it will make a genuine contribution towards helping the arrangements for the care of our cathedrals to work even better. I commend the measure to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, on these Benches we are grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his clear summary of what is indeed a modest measure. I must declare that I am on the council of St Paul's Cathedral and, therefore, have my own experience of the contents of this measure and the desire for them. Therefore, I shall not take up the time of the House any longer other than to say that it is the opinion of these Benches that this measure is expedient.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, as I indicated, on behalf of these Benches, I am happy to support the measure.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, because her support comes from her wide-ranging experience. I urge the House to approve the Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, although this measure is the most technical of the three Measures before the House today, I hope that I need not detain your Lordships long in considering it since its purpose is the worthy one of making modest and uncontentious changes to various aspects of ecclesiastical law.
	The law of the Church of England is complex and substantial and, from time to time, needs (like secular law) to be corrected or brought up to date to reflect changed circumstances. To that end, from time to time the General Synod enacts miscellaneous provisions Measures to amend Church legislation in ways which would not ordinarily merit free-standing legislation. This Measure is the latest in that series of Measures.
	Like other such Measures, this one deals with a diverse range of matters, united by little other than the fact that the changes made are uncontentious within the Church. Thus this particular Measure amends no fewer than nine pieces of legislation as well as making new provision. But there are certain common themes in its contents, in terms of a desire to improve processes, give greater flexibility and clarify or harmonise problematic provisions. Some brief examples of those themes may assist the House to appreciate the way in which the measure will benefit the Church at all levels.
	First, a number of the Measure's provisions will assist the national institutions of the Church, especially the Church Commissioners. For example, at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Treasury, the requirement that the Treasury appoint the commissioners' auditor and direct the manner in which the audit of their accounts is to be undertaken will be removed. In future, the Commissioners' Audit Committee itself will have responsibility both for appointing the auditor and directing the manner of the audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
	Additionally, the Measure will give effect to a request from the Privy Council to relieve it of responsibility for confirming schemes made by the commissioners under the Pastoral Measure to reorganise parishes and to determine the future of churches that are no longer pastorally needed. This administrative change which has the support of the commissioners and the dioceses is expected to result in the faster processing of pastoral and redundancy schemes in future and will not prejudice existing rights of appeal to the Privy Council. That is most important.
	There are then a number of provisions which will assist the work of the Church at a more local level. Thus, dioceses will be helped by the creation of a new statutory office of "diocesan secretary", who will act as the chief administrative officer of the diocese, undertaking such administrative functions as may be specified by future legislation or by the diocesan synod.
	Last, but by no means least, the Measure also includes various provisions which relate to the work of the Church at parish level. Thus, for example, Clause 4 of the Measure, together with changes made to the Church Representation Rules by other legislation, will complete a process of bringing the accounting regime for parochial church councils in line with that applicable under the Charities Act 1993 to charities generally.
	I hope that this brief summary of some of the principal provisions of the Measure will help to commend its usefulness to your Lordships. It has of course been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee and now comes to your Lordships' House for approval. I trust that noble Lords will feel able to give that without hesitation. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for the patience with which he has worked his way through these technical Measures.
	I take the moment to say that this is Holy Week and one wonders whether, if our dear Lord Jesus were here, He would smile at all this tidying up that we are doing on the Church's behalf—faster processing, diocesan secretaries and accounting regimes. I am sure that He would approve of it all and still smile. It is the opinion of these Benches that this Measure is expedient.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, as I indicated, I am very happy to support these Measures on behalf of these Benches. While I am speaking, perhaps I may wish the right reverend Prelate well in the very important task he has of conducting a splendid memorial service to Lord Sheppard of Liverpool.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support and especially for the commendation of my predecessor by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. I shall be seeing Lady Sheppard on Good Friday and will take to her the message from the House, which I know will be greatly appreciated.
	Perhaps I may also put on record that the Church of England is deeply grateful to those members of the Ecclesiastical Committee who give so much of their time in scrutinising the legislation, which makes it so easy for this House to accept its recommendations. I urge the House to support the Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (Relaxation of Restriction on Disclosure) Order 2005

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, concerns were raised about Section 54, which contained restrictions on the disclosure of information obtained during a local government audit or study by an auditor, or the Auditor General.
	Section 54 had been included to reflect closely the provisions of Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. Although there were wide exceptions permitting disclosure, both pieces of legislation imposed a criminal sanction on a person who disclosed information in contravention of those provisions. At the time, the Government considered that it was necessary to retain Section 54 to maintain consistency between England and Wales in the criminal sanctions to be imposed by primary legislation.
	Nevertheless, the Government acknowledged the concerns raised and amended Section 54 during its passage here in this House. The amendment gave the Secretary of State the power to amend Section 54 after enactment. The power can be used only to reflect changes to the provisions of Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act. The power to amend in Section 54 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act cannot be used to impose any further restriction on the disclosure of information.
	The Department for Constitutional Affairs undertook a review of statutory bars to the disclosure of information to make them consistent with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As a result of that review, on 1 January 2005 the Freedom of Information (Removal and Relaxation of Statutory Prohibitions on Disclosure of Information) Order 2004 came into force.
	Article 8 of that order amended Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act. It reversed the presumption against disclosure of information in respect of public authorities and persons acting on their behalf, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The reversal related to information obtained in the course of audit and inspection functions under any provision of the Audit Commission Act, or of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999.
	As Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act has now been amended to relax the restriction on disclosure, Section 54 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act can also be amended. In doing so, we will ensure that it continues to match closely the provisions in Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act, and the purpose of the draft order is to accomplish exactly that.
	Article 2(3) of the draft order provides that the restrictions on the disclosure of information in Section 54 do not apply to public authorities or persons acting on their behalf. "Public authorities" for this purpose would include the Auditor General for Wales and his staff, and a local government body and its employees.
	Article 2(4) then relaxes the disclosure provisions in respect of those public authorities by inserting a new Section 54A in the Act. Information may be disclosed by or on behalf of such authorities in any of the wide range of exceptions specified in Section 54(2): in respect of programmes of economy, efficiency and effectiveness studies—commonly known as value for money studies—of registered social landlords in Wales agreed between the Auditor General for Wales and the National Assembly for Wales; in any other circumstances except where disclosure would be prejudicial or would be likely to be prejudicial to the effective performance of the statutory functions of the public authority making the disclosure or on whose behalf it is made.
	As an example of such prejudicial disclosure, an audit could be prejudiced, if public bodies subject to audit or study were able to obtain advance notice of the audit methodology or the preliminary conclusions of the auditing bodies. The amendments made to Section 54 by the order will ensure that information can still be disclosed in all the circumstances previously allowable under Section 54 before its amendment and also create a wide category of circumstances in which information can lawfully be disclosed.
	If a public authority or a person acting on its behalf disclose information not authorised by new Section 54A, that person is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. The existing sanction of imprisonment would no longer apply.
	The Government's legal advice at the time of drafting the Freedom of Information Act order amending Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act was that it could extend to the amendment or repeal of legislation only in so far as it applied to public authorities. The Government, however, remain firmly committed to allowing the disclosure of information by organisations that would still be subject to Sections 54 and 49 as amended but are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. We are considering all the legislative avenues that are available to us to achieve that as quickly as possible.
	I hope that this clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to follow through on our undertaking to address the concerns raised by Clause 54 during the passage of the Bill and that the order will be approved to relax the current restrictions on disclosure of information. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the order represents the fulfilment of a promise made by the Government in the course of our discussions on the Public Audit (Wales) Act last year. As the Minister knows, we were particularly concerned about the content of Section 54 and the restriction that it imposed on disclosure of information. We were anxious that the clause should not be used as a hiding place by errant authorities.
	Only the Government's promise to consider our concerns about that aspect of the Bill in the wider context of the Freedom of Information Act and the Audit Commission Act prevented some of us trying to remove the clause altogether. The Government have kept their word. We are grateful for this order removing the restriction on disclosure by, or on behalf of, public authorities, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
	The order amends and adds to the existing Section 54 in the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 and brings the Auditor General for Wales into line with the Audit Commission in England so far as concerns the Freedom of Information Act. As I understand it, the penalty for the offence of wrongful disclosure in the new section and the Freedom of Information Act is a fine, as opposed to imprisonment, which remains the penalty for wrongful disclosure in contravention of subsection (2) of existing Section 54. It may seem odd to have different penalties for similar offences but it is understandable bearing in mind the different legislative source of the amending order.
	I wish to raise a couple of outstanding issues. The question of who decides ultimately that, as stated in new Section 54A(2)(c), disclosure,
	"would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance"
	of an authority and should not therefore take place has been answered by the Minister, Mr Don Touhig, in Standing Committee in the other place. He implied that the Auditor General had the final say. To save bother I shall quote him:
	"The hon. Member for Leominster asked who decides what is prejudicial to the performance of the statutory functions of a person disclosed. The answer is that the Auditor General would decide, not the auditing body".—[Official Report, Commons Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 7/3/05; col. 10.]
	Nevertheless, some doubts persist in that area. Concerns were raised in Standing Committee about the apparent lack of independent arbitration on what would prejudice effective performance. I gather that if someone requesting information had their request denied on the basis of prejudice, under Section 54A, the Information Commissioner could not consider their complaint and review the decision. I would be very grateful if the Government could clarify the Information Commissioner's ability to review decisions to withhold information. Was the Minister right to say that the ultimate arbiter is the Auditor General?
	My second point relates to the fact that new Section 54A applies only to public authorities designated under the Freedom of Information Act. At the moment, while the Auditor General for Wales is designated, local government auditors appointed by him are not designated, or at least the position is uncertain. The Minister referred to the Auditor General "and his staff", but I am not sure whether all the auditors that he may appoint ad hoc to local authorities are necessarily members of his staff. That means that the Auditor General for Wales will disclose information in line with the Freedom of Information Act, but the auditors whom he appoints may not disclose information, except under more restricted circumstances.
	One way of remedying that anomaly would be for the Government to designate auditors appointed by the Auditor General as public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act as soon as possible. I wonder whether the Government have any plans to do so, and, if so, when. Will they then bring forward orders to amend further the legislation in England and Wales?
	Having put those two points, which I hope the Minister can answer, either this evening or at his convenience, we are generally content with the order. It is, of course, coupled with an auditor's duty under Section 22 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 to report on, and bring to the attention of the public, any matter that comes to his notice and requires such treatment in the public interest. I understand, incidentally, that Section 54 has not yet been activated by the National Assembly Government. Can the Minister tell us when that might be?
	We all favour openness and transparency in the operations of public authorities and believe that this order and the Public Audit (Wales) Act will promote these objectives. There should be no hiding place for wrongdoing in any kind of public authority.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord's final sentence. I regard the order as a promise half-fulfilled, although I do not doubt the Government's good intentions in putting it forward.
	We seem to have ended up in something of a muddle. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in presenting the order to your Lordships, envisaged that there would be further legislation and that further orders would come before the House on this matter. That underlines the point we made during the passage of the Bill itself in September last year: that Section 54 should be scrapped, and something put in its place that was clear and led the way, which would be a pattern for the English authorities to follow. We felt, and said so on a number of occasions, that Wales should lead the way, as effectively as we did last Saturday in winning the Grand Slam. Your Lordships will forgive me—I had to get that in at some stage.
	In introducing Commons Amendment No. 1 on 8 September, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, said:
	"Your Lordships will also be aware that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales has announced in another place that the Government intend to repeal at the earliest legislative opportunity the sanction of imprisonment for failure to comply with the amended provisions of Section 49 and Clause 54. The sanction of a fine for unlawful disclosure will remain".—[Official Report, 8/9/04; col. 631.]
	I said in reply that the solution, which had been arrived at with considerable effort on the part of the Minister,
	"is not entirely satisfactory, but it is as good as we will get".—[Official Report, 8/9/04; col. 633.]
	That was the context in which the amendment was accepted.
	When we look at what has happened with this order, Section 54 has not been repealed. It remains. The section apparently applies to anyone other than a public authority, who could be either the Auditor General and his staff, or the local government body that is concerned and its staff. Anyone else who discloses information is subject, following conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both. So the promise that was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has not been fulfilled by this order.
	It is confusing that Section 54 remains with all its subsections, apart from one minor amendment. For example, its Henry VIII clause—by order made by statutory instrument amending or repealing Section 54—is still in being. The conditions in which that amending order could be made are still in being. All the mechanisms which one would have thought would have become obsolete, if this order were properly drafted, are still there. So, the mechanism that we found to be highly unsatisfactory is still in the Bill. This order merely makes a distinction between any person and a person who is either the Auditor General for Wales or a local government authority or people acting on its behalf. So a double mechanism exists, one of which is, one would have thought, completely out of date.
	The sanction of imprisonment remains. The sanction of a fine for breach of the new Section 54A remains. The curb on whistle-blowing for local government authorities that we had hoped would be abolished remains.
	Furthermore, the drafting of the order is rather strange. I refer to new Section 54A(2), which reads as follows:
	"A person who is, or acts on behalf of a person who is, a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 . . . may disclose any such information . . . in any other circumstances, except where such a disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance by such a person of a function imposed or conferred on the person by or under an enactment".
	However one reads the subsection, the person remains the same, so the Auditor General may disclose any such information except where it would be likely to prejudice the effective performance by him—not by anybody else—of a function imposed or conferred on him by or under an enactment. The illustration that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, gave when he introduced the order simply did not follow that wording. It referred to disclosure prejudicing the effective performance by another person and not by the Auditor General.
	Although I have done my best, I end up confused. Section 54 of the Act remains in being, with its sanction of imprisonment; and the new Section 54A is introduced with a different mechanism and confusing wording. As it is a draft order, I would be grateful if, in addition to taking on board the points that were strikingly made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, those who are in charge of the order were to go back and consider whether they can set out more clearly what they intend and whether it would not be better to repeal Section 54 as it now stands in the 2004 Act and start afresh with something that we can all understand.
	I am not at all impressed by the argument that we must mirror the English legislation. That argument was put forward in September last year. We rejected it then, and we continue to reject it. So I hope that the order, before it is confirmed, will be considered with much greater care.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am marginally more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who gave a rather more hearty welcome to the main propositions behind the order than did the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, but I understand that the purpose of the debate is to leave us with a full understanding of the issues raised.
	I sought to emphasise in my opening remarks that we recognised the concern about Section 54 when the Bill was being considered. The order is an honest and constructive attempt to fulfil the obligations into which we entered at that stage, although I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is asking for rather more than what is being at present offered.
	Let me emphasise one or two points to the House. It is certainly the case that, at the time of its drafting, the Freedom of Information Act order to which I referred in my opening remarks—that which amended Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998—can extend only to the amendment or repeal of legislation in so far as it applies to public authorities. We are committed to extending disclosures of information beyond that. We are looking at all legislative avenues, and intend to fulfil this obligation as rapidly as we can. I recognise the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the more limited dimension of this particular order. However, I give the noble Lord an undertaking in good faith: we have more work to do, which we intend to do as rapidly as possible.
	I want to concentrate rather more on any weaknesses that there may be in this particular order, and to reply to the points that have been made. First, I emphasise that the Auditor General has the final decision concerning the audited body—that is, before the Information Commissioner is involved. However, in response to the first of the two long and interesting questions addressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—questions which I will hope to meet as fully as I can, and where I have failed to answer in every respect what he and other noble Lords have asked, I will certainly write to them—the Information Commissioner has jurisdiction to consider all complaints made to him under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A request made in respect of information relating to the audit or inspection of a local government body under the proposed Section 54 would be no different from any other request. If the Auditor General for Wales, or a local government body, were to deny access to information on the grounds that its release would be prejudicial to the effective performance of statutory functions—and, therefore, exempt under Section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act—I can assure the noble Lord that it would be open to the person who had requested that information to complain to the Information Commissioner. As with any other request, that would be the case. So we are covered, in the same way as any other request, under freedom of information legislation.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have a brief question: are the Government entirely satisfied that the Information Commissioner, given the burgeoning tasks which are being given to him, has sufficient resources to deal with issues like these? Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee—and an explanation—about where the funds are coming from? Does the Information Commissioner have enough resources to deal with these problems?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is a developmental role. It is difficult, in the first instance, to judge how much use may be made by the public of the requests for information. I am sure that the noble Earl is reflecting some anxieties in the press about the extent of the information to be revealed and how quickly that will be done. How strange it would be if the press did not have criticisms on that score, given that it takes the opportunity to criticise the Government on almost every other score. If a journalist finds that a request is not met with the degree of promptness he expects, no doubt there will be a complaint.
	In general terms, however, and giving the noble Earl credit for the serious intent of his question, of course we will need to expand the resources available to the Information Commissioner according to the development of his workload. However, the noble Earl will recognise that while many of the requests will be entirely appropriate and intelligent, addressing proper sources of information, among those will be some requests—as we see in Parliamentary Questions—which might not hit a significant nail on the head. From time to time it is only right that the answer to such questions should be that the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Members of the other place are accustomed to the fact that that answer must be given on certain occasions. It is an accurate answer. We cannot provide limitless resources even to a body as important as that of the Information Commissioner.
	With that rider, I want to reassure the noble Earl that this order demonstrates that the Government are committed to making freedom of information work. As the noble Earl has indicated, that requires resources to be made available in order to meet requests for information. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am much obliged. Further to the answer just given by the noble Lord, if a member of the public obtains information that has been supplied to the Auditor General through the use of freedom of information and then releases it to the press or makes it public in any way, has he committed an offence under Section 45 which would make him liable to imprisonment of up to two years?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am no lawyer and, in the presence of several extremely distinguished lawyers, I hesitate to tread on this ground in definitive terms. But I should have thought that the logic is obvious. Once information is in the public domain and has been supplied by a properly authorised officer, how could anyone commit an offence by further distributing that information? That is the logic of the position. I cannot conceive of any form of information whose use, which would be entirely legitimate, by the individual concerned would render him subject to sanction.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked me a question related to bodies other than public bodies. Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act enables the Secretary of State to add bodies not already designated as public authorities for the purposes of the Act. However, designation under Section 5 does not confer a presumption of disclosure on any such body solely for the purposes of proposed Section 54A. Designation would carry with it all the responsibilities conferred on public authorities for the purposes of the Act. It would confer a duty, for instance, to produce and consult on a publication scheme and other responsibilities in respect of the handling of requests for information.
	This could be unnecessarily burdensome. A private sector organisation appointed as auditors for the Auditor General might find that under these requirements, having fulfilled its responsibility to support the work of the Auditor General, it is in the same position as a public body. So I emphasise again that the Government have made a public commitment to extend the presumption in favour of disclosure within the spirit of the Act to appointed auditors and to other organisations not currently covered by the scope of the amending order. That will be done at the earliest opportunity.
	I hope that noble Lords will agree that a designation under the Freedom of Information Act may not be the most appropriate and, indeed, perhaps not the quickest way of going about this task. We are at one with the noble Lord's intent. However, we have reservations about whether that is necessarily the best way of tackling the matter.
	I was asked whether Section 54 had been activated. The Assembly proposes to commence that on 1 April 2005, so we are a matter of days away from the activation of that section. I understood the points that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, emphasised. I can only reiterate what I said in introducing the order. I recognise that there is no way in which the Government can respond fully to the noble Lord when he says, "We would have preferred that Section 54 had never been passed into law". We had these debates last year. It is a great joy to revisit these issues at this late hour some months later. However, one's memory remains fresh and green as regards all things that are interesting and exciting, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, reflected, although his memory of Saturday's game is slightly awry. Wales did not score first and therefore there was an element of recovery even in that game.
	I want to emphasise that of course we are not able to meet the noble Lord in full when he says that he would prefer that Section 54 had not been passed. This order makes considerable progress under Section 54 towards the extension of information which was sought in earlier debates. I freely give the noble Lord the commitment that we are pursuing other ways in which we can extend that to non-public bodies. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we are making progress.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I wish to make it clear that I am not trying to go back to the debate of last September and to say that Section 54 should never have been passed. However, I am saying that this is an opportunity to scrap Section 54 and to put in something that is simple and understandable. It is the putting together of Section 54 and new Section 54A—two different mechanisms applying to two not very clearly defined people or bodies—that is the problem. It is very confusing. I do not understand it and I do not think that the people of Wales will understand it either.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can only seek to persuade the noble Lord as best I can. I regret that the noble Lord has reservations. I want to emphasise that we gave an undertaking last year. We seek to fulfil that undertaking. We recognise that this order is not the complete answer. That is why I have indicated that other measures will be laid before Parliament and other strategies will be adopted. However, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that this is a significant step forward and that we are making progress in fulfilling the commitment. The measure will extend freedom of information. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Legal Service (Asylum and Immigration Appeals) Regulations 2005

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the regulations are made under Section 103D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as inserted by Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Section 103D makes provision for the High Court and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to order payment of an appellant's costs for a review of an AIT decision and any pursuant reconsideration out of the Community Legal Service Fund.
	These regulations establish the statutory framework for these new arrangements and prescribe the precise circumstances in which costs can be paid. The funding code is being modified under Section 9 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The regulations and the funding code are subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
	I should first explain why we are making these regulations. The new arrangements are being introduced to combat abuse of the appeals process and reduce the number of weak applications being pursued through the system. That is imperative to ensure that we increase speed and efficiency in the asylum and immigration system and target public money and resources on those who are genuinely in need. Asylum seekers have no disincentive to withdraw from the system, regardless of how weak their case, because remaining in the country is their primary goal. Onward appeals and further challenges are ways for people to buy time, which means that there is always an advantage to lodging another application. That is evidenced by the figures; between 2003 and 2004 approximately 30,000 decisions were made in asylum cases on permission applications to the Immigration and Appeal Tribunal. Of those decisions, only 33 per cent resulted in permission being granted. The remaining 67 per cent of applications were dismissed.
	So instead of focusing on the asylum seeker, what we are doing with the new legal aid arrangements is disincentivising the representative. We are introducing an element of risk, which is that if a representative chooses to pursue a weak case they risk not being paid for their work. This is a proportionate response to the problems of tackling abuse within the appeals system and one which strikes the right balance between discouraging weak cases while securing access to justice for genuine claimants.
	We announced our decisions on the scheme on 24 February 2005. We have made a number of changes to our original proposals after carefully considering the responses to the public consultation. I shall now briefly take noble Lords through how the scheme will work and the key provisions in the draft regulations. The new arrangements will apply only to the review and reconsideration of appeals under new Section 103A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, inserted by Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, and only if the application was made by the appellant. The arrangements will not apply to all other stages of the appeals process, including the original appeal to the AIT and any appeal to the Court of Appeal, applications made by the Home Office; and fast track proceedings.
	Additionally, the arrangements will not apply to the representative's initial advice to the appellant on whether to apply for a review of the tribunal's decision. That will be funded as part of controlled legal representation for the original appeal. That will ensure that every appellant has the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to challenge the tribunal's decision. The representative will have devolved powers to grant representation, and that will be based on the test that the tribunal judge will apply when deciding whether to make an order for costs in an unsuccessful case. Successful cases will always be funded.
	The test is whether the tribunal is satisfied that at the time that the Section 103A application was made there was a "significant prospect" that the appeal would be allowed on reconsideration, which is set out in regulation 6. If the representative thinks that the appellant's case does have significant prospects of success and agrees to provide representation, the review application will be considered in the first instance by the AIT acting on behalf of the High Court, under what is being described as the "filter" stage. If the application is dismissed, the applicant can opt for the High Court to consider the application, which is the "opt-in" stage. At the review stage, the tribunal and the High Court will share similar powers to award costs. Those powers will extend only to awarding costs for the review application and will be exercisable only in limited circumstances.
	If an application is successful, a reconsideration will be ordered. If a case is successful at the reconsideration stage and the appeal decision is overturned, then costs must be awarded. If a case is unsuccessful and the appeal decision is upheld, then costs may be awarded. The tribunal will have to apply the prospects of success test, which is that it must be satisfied that at the time when the appellant made the Section 103A application, there was a significant prospect that the appeal would be allowed on reconsideration.
	It will be for the judiciary to interpret the regulations and what "significant prospect" means, and I cannot pre-empt what that interpretation might be. However, I can clarify the Government's intention. The purpose of the scheme is to reduce the number of weak cases moving through the appeals process and to discourage unmeritorious challenges to tribunal decisions. If an application is unsuccessful at the review stage, it will usually be because it lacked merit, and therefore we would not expect costs to be awarded. However, if an application is successful and the representative has acted in good faith, that would mean that the case had merit. In those circumstances, we would expect costs to be awarded. Every case must be dealt with on an individual basis, but representatives who pursue meritorious cases can expect to be paid.
	I also assure noble Lords that an unsuccessful outcome at the reconsideration will not automatically lead to costs being refused. That is not how the scheme has been designed. The test that the tribunal must apply will be based on the prospects of success and the information that was available to the representative when the application was made. That is a specific requirement of the test in Regulation 6(3), because we realise that representatives cannot make an assessment of a case's prospects of success based on information that they do not have.
	If, following the reconsideration of an appeal, the tribunal refuses to award costs, that decision can be challenged on a written application for review. Both the representative and counsel instructed by the representative will have the right to apply for a review of the decision to refuse costs. That review will be conducted by a different senior immigration judge to the judge or composition of tribunal members that made the decision on funding.
	I have briefly outlined the substantive provisions of the regulations. I shall turn briefly to the consequential changes to the funding code that we have laid before Parliament arising from the commencement of the AIT on 4 April 2005. Amendments to sections 2.4 and 13.1 of the funding code criteria replace references to proceedings before the immigration adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal with the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal or the High Court in relation to review applications. I commend the draft order and revised funding code to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the regulations are made under Section 103D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was inserted into that by Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
	During the debate in this House on the then 2004 Bill, we on these Benches objected strongly to Section 103D. On Report, I said that if the High Court had ordered reconsideration under Section 103A, legal aid should be granted automatically for reconsideration by the tribunal. I said that it was essential that the appellant's lawyer get legal aid in such circumstances, and that "no win, no fee" funding was completely inappropriate for such litigation, with potentially disastrous consequences for an asylum seeker wrongly sent back. We would have accepted, somewhat reluctantly, that there would be a possibility of "no win, no fee" arrangements on the application to the judge for reconsideration but, once the judge had decided that there should be reconsideration, there was no case left for saying that, at the full reconsideration, there should in any circumstances be no legal aid.
	What the Government propose in the regulations is unnecessary in relation to reconsideration, because a series of filters is already in place to screen out the hopeless cases. The Legal Services Commission applies quality controls to firms conducting publicly funded immigration work, so if they start taking hopeless cases they will lose their funding. All review applications are subject to a controlled legal representation merits test, which means that the applications must be at least reasonably arguable to qualify for legal aid. From 4 April next year, all lawyers doing publicly funded immigration work will have completed a rigorous accreditation process.
	In cases where the High Court has ordered reconsideration under Section 103A, the judge will have decided that the case has sufficient merits to justify reconsideration. If the judge has decided that, it must surely be wrong to withhold legal aid.
	We are as opposed today as we were when we debated the Bill a year ago to the Government's extension of the no-win-no-fee practice to reconsideration under Section 103A, which is wrong in principle and creates a dangerous precedent. We have to accept that the Bill is now law and that this issue was fully debated during its passage through your Lordships' House.
	The power to make provision for costs dependent on the prospects of success is in Section 103D(5) of the Act. We therefore reluctantly accept that we cannot oppose the order in principle.
	I have a number of questions to ask the noble Baroness. First, I understand from a briefing we have received from the Law Society that at a meeting on 11 March a DCA representative stated that legal aid will be granted in all cases when reconsideration is ordered even if the application is ultimately unsuccessful, unless there has been dishonesty by the legal aid supplier in representing the grounds for the review. Can the Minister confirm that? If so, why is that important and welcome decision, if it is a decision, not on the face of the Bill?
	The significant prospect of success test is, as the Minister said, a matter for interpretation by the judge or tribunal considering whether or not to make an order for costs. The judge or tribunal will not be bound by the views of the DCA. It would surely therefore have been better if they were bound under the terms of the order.
	The second question is somewhat detailed. What is the reason for the distinction between Regulation 5(4) and Regulation 6(3)? Regulation 5(4) applies to the costs of unsuccessful applications to the High Court for an order for reconsideration. Regulation 6(3) applies to the costs of unsuccessful reconsideration following the making of an order by the High Court. Both of these require that before legal aid can be awarded there must have been a significant prospect at the time of the application that the appeal would be allowed on reconsideration. But Regulation 5(4) requires that there should have been an intervening change in the circumstances or the law since the application was made. Why is that?
	If the judge feels, for example, that the application for an order for reconsideration only just fails and did have a significant prospect of success, why should there be a requirement for a change in circumstances or the law as well?
	My third question is that in civil "no win, no fee" cases, a mark-up above the normal rates of charging is allowed. There is nothing in the regulations about mark-up. However, will it be provided for by the contract between the Legal Services Commission and the supplier referred to in Regulation 81? If so, at what rate?
	Those are the points that I wish to make, and I shall listen to the Minister's answer with interest.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it seems to us that there are three issues. First, why is the special regime necessary at all? Are there not sufficient safeguards in the existing legal aid system, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already indicated, to prevent unmeritorious cases from getting off the ground? The Legal Services Commission imposes quality control on the relevant solicitors' firms; the CLR "merits test" requires more than a 50 per cent prospect of success; and all lawyers undertaking publicly funded work will have had to undergo testing accreditation procedures. Moreover, the statistical evidence demonstrates that, since 2003 at any rate, asylum applications have been falling steadily.
	Secondly, why will the applicant not know whether the request for review and reconsideration of an application will qualify for legal aid until the end of the case? Why is the test retrospective? The judge must apply it, retrospectively, to the circumstances that prevailed at the time that the application was made. That will inevitably involve a high level of subjective judgment on behalf of the judge.
	Thirdly, it has been rumoured for some time that the chances-of-success threshold will be set as high as 75 per cent. If that is so, it is hard to imagine any application which might successfully meet it. That is particularly disturbing when one considers the difficulties for asylum seekers of representing themselves in the absence of legal support. It should also be borne in mind that the consequences of the courts getting it wrong in the case of any individual asylum seeker might ultimately lead to his or her torture or death.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I understand from the Law Society of England and Wales that, at a recent meeting to explain the new scheme on 11 March this year, the department stated that all applications that pass the initial review stage will benefit from a funding order at the end of the reconsideration stage, even if unsuccessful, provided that there has been,
	"no dishonesty on the part of the legal aid supplier in representing the grounds for review".
	If that is to be the standard, then the risk to suppliers is reduced to the work required for the review stage alone.
	Where a full reconsideration is then ordered, the supplier can be virtually certain of receiving payment at the end of the case. This offers a degree of certainty as to payment. However, I understand—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also understands—that the Law Society is concerned that this stated intention is not reflected in the regulations; and that the department maintains that the interpretation of the "significant prospects of success" test should be left to judicial discretion. This could lead to inconsistency in the interpretation of the test. If it is the Government's intention that cases that pass the review stage will benefit from a funding order, the regulations should be amended to reflect that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. I recognise that we are at the end of a long process with a great deal of debate around these issues. That is very interesting for me because I also have ministerial responsibility in this area.
	I shall start by trying to say something about the significant prospects of success. I do not by any means equate this issue with "no win, no fee" because there will be circumstances when unsuccessful cases do indeed receive the funding that we all agree they deserve. We have sought to look across a system that clearly has considerable problems within it. As I indicated in my opening remarks, there is no incentive whatever for an applicant to do anything other than continue to pursue his case. We must try to think about how to create a system which genuinely deals with those who have real claims and which disincentivises people—in this case, suppliers—from continuing with claims that have no merit.
	We have sought with the filter to make it clear that we are concerned with those cases that have merit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we want to ensure that genuine claimants remain in this country. We have a long and proud tradition of that and we wish to uphold that. But we also want to ensure that the evidence presented at that time is all that it could be.
	So the purpose of the judges at the end of the case having the opportunity to say that they will review the information and the case before them, and to interpret significant prospects of success, is because I have great faith in the judiciary. We have very deliberately within the DCA—and I as a Minister—not attempted to give percentages or anything else to the judiciary. It would be wholly wrong to do that. It is for the judiciary to interpret and review the evidence that comes forward and finally to answer the question whether the information that the supplier provided at the beginning amounted to a case that has significant prospects of success—win or lose.
	So it is not a "no win, no fee". It is not a circumstance where we have put figures on it. It is not where I or any other Minister dictates what would happen. It is the case that I would expect that a number of those who come forward who are unsuccessful would indeed receive funding, and we have built in the opportunity to challenge that, which is right and proper.
	But the regulations are trying to set out very clearly that our purpose is to ensure that cases come forward where there is genuinely a strong belief that there are significant prospects of them being successful. That is very important when you look at this, as I do as a non-lawyer, as a system that clearly has pressure points within it that we need to address. We believe that we have the balance within that right. That is the basis upon which you have both the filter and ultimately the judge at the end of the case looking again to ensure that that has happened.
	I do not know what comments were made on 11 March. I think, as I have indicated, that a number of cases that were not successful will come through, but it is for the judiciary to determine. As noble Lords will know, we arrived at significant prospects after a great deal of consultation and careful consideration. But I am not suggesting that we should expect the judiciary to have that interpretative bias in any way, shape or form. It is a matter for them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about the mark-up. The mark-up has been altered from 25 per cent—which is what we originally proposed—to 35 per cent for these cases. In addition, if there is a particularly complex case with perhaps a senior legal representative or senior barrister involved, there is the opportunity to go back to the Legal Services Commission and argue for more resources to be made available.
	We do not expect there will be many, if any, instances of dishonesty: the majority of cases will be paid. I was hoping to get an answer on a particular point asked by the noble Lord and I will see whether that arrives. To answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, we believe that the system requires a special regime. I did not put a figure on it; 75 per cent has been bandied around. That was a figure that I was pushed on by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. That does not mean I agreed with it—I simply did not respond to it because I felt it was wrong for me to give any indication of what I would consider significant prospects of success.
	I am looking for a system that removes the 65-week timetable—which is what we currently have—to what we hope will be a 32-week timetable for applicants; 36 weeks perhaps in very complicated cases. That will enable us to give justice more quickly and more appropriately to those in need of it.
	Much has been made of what will happen with regard to the supplier base. I can only say at this stage that regarding the asylum and non-asylum contracts—both with solicitors and not-for-profit contracts—comparing 2003–04 with 2004–05, in all cases the latter figures are currently above the figures for 2003–04. That does not mean that I am in any way, shape or form complacent about our need to have extremely good legal representation for those individuals. Therefore I can commit to your Lordships' House that I will be looking very carefully to ensure that the system that we have in place enables us to provide high-quality legal advice for those who need and deserve it. I believe that the system will do that. At present, despite what has been said about stakeholders pulling out, there is no evidence to suggest that that will happen.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why Regulation 5(4), the test at review stage, is stricter than Regulation 6(3), the test at reconsideration. At the review stage, as the noble Lord will realise, if the judge thinks that there is a significant prospect of the appeal being allowed on reconsideration, he will order a reconsideration. So the case falls under Regulation 5(2), not Regulation 5(4). If a reconsideration is not ordered, the intention is that funding will not normally be granted. Regulation 5(4) serves the limited purpose of ensuring that a representative who brings a meritorious case will get funding if some change of circumstances means that a reconsideration is not ordered. That is the reason for the difference between those two regulations.
	I believe that we have struck the balance that we need to strike to ensure that cases that have merit go forward and that we serve those individuals as well as we possibly can. It also allows us to disincentivise a system that at present incentivises only the pursuance of cases.
	I accept all the work that the Legal Services Commission has done with suppliers to ensure that they are of the highest possible quality. I pay tribute to the work of many of the suppliers. The system ensures that we get the balance to enable us to provide justice as speedily as possible. As I have already indicated, if I have one ambition it is that we reduce the length of time that people in the system have to wait to get the justice that they deserve. I have already committed to ensuring that we look after, and look over, the process and that we work closely with the LSC, the judiciary and suppliers to ensure that the system works effectively. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Revised Funding Code prepared by the Legal Services Commission

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I spoke to this Motion in the previous debate. I beg to move.

Moved, That the revised funding code laid before the House on 9 March be approved.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.